Commons Sitting of 13 June 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) — Third Reading — Gateshead and District Tramways*; Lydd Railway (Extensions) *; Milford Docks *; Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway *, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS— Committee —Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—II.P. [Tenth Night]; Corn Returns (No. 2) * [193]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Third Reading —Customs and Inland Revenue Buildings (Ireland)* [156], and passed.
Considered as amended —Third Reading —Public Schools (Scotland) Teachera* [153], and passed.
Third Reading —Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [144]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7)* [167]; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8) * [168]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9)* [174]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * [14'2]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) * [151], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) — THE JOINT LICENSING COMMITTEE, PETERHEAD.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention

  977
  has been called to the fact that three applications for confirmation of new certificates for grocers' and publicans' licences, set down for consideration at a meeting of the Joint Licensing Committee of Peterhead on May 15th, not being granted in consequence of there being no quorum of the Joint Committee, the magistrates present granted an illegal certificate authorising the applicants to sell liquor at their own risk, and on that certificate the Excise authorities have provisionally accepted the Licence Duty, and permitted the persons to sell liquor as if licensed according to Law; and, whether, when provisionally accepting the Duty, the Excise officials granted licences on unconfirmed "new certificates," in contravention of the provisions of the Publicans' Certificates (Scotland) Act; and, if not, under what authority the Excise officials have in these cases connived at the selling of excisable liquors by unlicensed persons?
  MR. COUETNEY: I am informed that the Confirmation Court at Peterhead, which did not consist of the full quorum, confirmed, so far as they had the power, the certificates in the three oases referred to, which certificates had been unanimously granted by the Licensing Court. This, however, was subject to the applicants accepting the risk of an objection, on the ground of the incompleteness of the Court. The Excise have not granted licences in any of the cases; but, in accordance with their usual practice, and not in contravention of any Act of Parliament, they informed the applicants that if they thought proper to deposit the Licence Duty and to sell on their own responsibility, pending the full confirmation, they would not be interfered with so far as the Revenue was concerned.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SPELLING REFORM—THE PHONIC SYSTEM.
  MR. HEALYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a letter of the clerk to the Leeds School Board, of the 14th June 1881, addressed to the Spelling Reform Association, as follows:—
  "The Inspector of the Board has repeatedly examined those schools in which the Phonic method is carried out, and Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools has on several occasions expressed his approval of the method and his satisfaction at the results. The method was lately
  978
  adopted by an infants' school teacher with marked success, showing that the method is easy of acquirement and fruitful in its results;"
  And, whether the Education Department can do anything to facilitate the teaching of children to read under the method therein recommended?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Member refers. Mr. Legard, Her Majesty's Inspector, expresses his satisfaction with the results of the Phonic method of teaching reading in certain infant schools at Leeds. He states that no change is introduced in the mode of spelling; but that the different vowel sounds are distinguished by a variety of marks, which greatly facilitate the teaching of reading to young children. Although the Department is willing that new educational experiments shall have a fair trial, we do not feel justified in prescribing the Phonic or any other method. "We shall not, however, discourage it; and we believe that if the system is sound it will make its way, as there is no lack of enterprize on the part of school boards, managers, and teachers, all of whom are interested in arriving at the highest results by the best methods.

  VACCINATION—THE OFFICIAL METHOD.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the verdict of a coroner's jury at Hollo-way, of "shock to the system following vaccination," the medical evidence being that the child in question might have survived two incisions, but was unable to withstand the shock caused by four; and, whether the British Medical Journal is correct in asserting that—
  "It is imperative for public vaccinators to make four scarifications, in accordance with the directions of the Local Government Board?"
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to the verdict in this case, but as yet I have only been able to obtain a brief report in a newspaper of the evidence, and I have directed a further inquiry into the circumstances of the case. It is true that the instructions issued several years ago by the Privy Council direct the public vaccinators to make such punctures as would produce four vesicles; but, according to the experience of the Department, no harm has resulted from this practice, which is

  979
  considered requisite to insure effectual vaccination. According to the report, it was stated by the medical witness at the inquest that the public vaccinator would not necessarily make himself acquainted with the physical condition of the child before vaccination. This, however, is entirely a misapprehension, as the official instructions expressly direct the public vaccinator to ascertain the state of the child's health before he undertakes to vaccinate it.

  THE IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSION — NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. MACARTNEY (for Mr. EWART)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland have paid over cash, or have appropriated specific securities of an equal value to the amount of one million three hundred thousand pounds to the Pension Fund, under the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, as required by the third section of the Act of the 42 and 43 Vic. c. 74; and, if the money has not yet been paid over, to inquire whether steps will be at once taken to secure the Pension Fund before any further charges are imposed on the property of the Irish Church Fund?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Irish Church Commission have not paid over cash or appropriated specific securities of an equal value to £1,300,000 to the National School Teachers Pension Fund, because the Act only requires them to do so upon a certificate from the National Debt Commissioners, that the whole or part of the sum is required for the purposes of the Act, and no such certificate has been given. The Irish Church Commissioners pay to the National Debt Commissioners, under the second part of the section in question, interest at the rate of 3 per cent per annum upon £1,300,000. Any new charge to be imposed upon the Church Fund must form the subject of proposals to Parliament; and the hon. Member will be able to judge whether these proposals maintain the security of the National School Teachers' Pension Fund.

  EMIGRATION — PASSENGER TRAFFIC FROM SCANDINAVIAN PORTS.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps
  980
  have been taken to inquire into the emigrant traffic from the Scandinavian Ports; and, whether he can lay any Papers or Reports on the subject upon the Table?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that an inquiry had been ordered as to the conveyance of emigrants from the Scandinavian ports. The Report had been received, and as soon as it had been considered there would be no objection to lay it on the Table?

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have asked, or will now ask, the Sultan, who is Sovereign of Egypt, to send an armed force to that Country to prevent a recurrence of the recent deplorable riot at Alexandria, and to check the revolutionary party?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I regret that it is not expedient that I should give any further answer to the hon. Member than that I have already given. The hon. Member will see by the course of events and the Papers, when published, what has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to armed intervention in Egypt.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that my Question applies as much to the future as to the past.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; my answer also applies to the future.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet whether he can give us any further information as to the recent events in Alexandria, and the condition of Mr. Cookson, our Consul?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Alexandria is now perfectly quiet. There is a very large concentration of Egyptian troops there. Dervish Pasha has increased the garrison, which now amounts to 12,000 men, almost the whole of the Egyptian Army being there. The streets are perfectly quiet; the troops patrol the streets and disarm everybody, taking away their sticks. Mr. Cookson is going on very well indeed. It may be interesting to know how many people have been killed in the riot. We have no very accurate information on that subject. It has been exceedingly difficult to discover it from the different hospi-

  981
  tals; but our own information is that about 50 people were killed.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The hon. Baronet spoke of Dervish Pasha as having increased the garrison of Alexandria. Do I understand that Dervish Pasha has assumed the responsibility of restoring order in Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I stated yesterday, the position is extremely anomalous. Orders are given both by Dervish Pasha and the Khedive; and they apparently are given through Arabi Pasha and the other Ministers; but Dervish Pasha states that the increase in the garrison of Alexandria has been by his orders.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked whether, in the event of Arabi Pasha being reinstated in the Councils of the Khedive, the Ultimatum or Note, or whatever it might be called, of Her Majesty's Government and France having thus been absolutely disregarded, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to enforce such Note or Ultimatum; and, if not, whether any orders had or would be given for the Fleet to leave Egyptian waters?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot answer the Question for two reasons. In the first place, it is not a Question growing out of the answer I have already given; and, in the second place, it is a Question of which Notice ought to be given. Notice ought to be given of all Questions not arising out of the immediate situation.
  MR. RAIKES: Perhaps the hon. Baronet can say whether the Government are in the possession of any information as to whether the Khedive has left Cairo?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was about to make a statement on that subject in answer to a Question on the Paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood).
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that I will repeat my Question to-morrow.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the hon. Baronet whether five of the iron-clads now in Egyptian waters drew too much water to enter the harbour of Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This Question does not at all arise out of the others; but in order to prevent it being put a second time I shall answer it now.
  982
  The Question, I suppose, refers to the four iron-clads (not five) that have last appeared off the coast. One of them draws too much water to enter the port. One can enter, and the other two can enter into a portion of the harbour, but not the whole.
  MR. NORWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether steps have been taken to secure prompt communication between Her Majesty's Representatives at Cairo and the commanders of Her Majesty's vessels at Suez and Port Said, in order that British merchant ships may be stopped from entering the Canal in the event of the disorders in Egypt assuming a more threatening aspect?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reply to my hon. Friend, I can inform him that there is at each end of the Canal one of Her Majesty's ships, whose commanders would at once know if anything were wrong, and warn vessels accordingly. Measures have been taken to restore at once telegraphic communication in the event of its being interrupted, and the Admiral is fully supplied with despatch vessels, should they be required. As the Question refers to communications between Port Said and Suez, I may take this opportunity of stating that the Khedive and Dervish Pasha have left Cairo together for Alexandria; but Sir Edward Malet and the other Consuls have not accompanied them, but remain at Cairo. The news arrived about two hours ago, and I do not know whether they had left late last night or early this morning; but Sir Edward Malet and the other Consuls seem to have remained at Cairo. We have informed Sir Edward Malet that we think his proper place is with the Khedive. I have no doubt, therefore, that he will have left for Alexandria.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to ask, has the hon. Baronet received any information as to the formation of a new Ministry of which Arabi Pasha is the head?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have no such information.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the hon. Baronet state where Arabi Pasha is— whether he is still at Cairo?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The telegram does not give us any information on the subject. I presume he remains in Cairo; but I do not know.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to ask if Arabi Pasha remains at Cairo while the whole of the Egyptian Army has gone to Alexandria, is not the position of the Europeans who remain at Cairo very dangerous?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That, of course, is a matter of opinion; but I have no doubt that if the whole of the European Consuls follow the Khedive to Alexandria a largo portion of the European inhabitants of Cairo will do the same.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: Can the hon. Baronet now answer my Question— namely, whether, in the event of Arabi Pasha being reinstated in the Councils of the Khedive, the Ultimatum or Note, or whatever it might be called, of Her Majesty's Government and France having thus been absolutely disregarded, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to enforce such Note or Ultimatum; and, if not, whether any orders had or would be given for the Fleet to leave Egyptian waters? If the hon. Baronet cannot answer now, I will give Notice for to-morrow.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I shall not be any better able to answer to-morrow than now. All I can tell the hon. Member is that the present condition of anarchy in Egypt will not be allowed to continue. I cannot go into any details of the measures which will be adopted.
  MR. BOURKE: May I be permitted to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any measures by applying to shipowners for the protection and safety of British subjects at Alexandria, because it is obvious that if there is a large number of persons anxious to go on board ship, the transports or men-of-war would not be sufficient.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour has made arrangements for sending people wishing to leave the shore on board the Tanjore, the Peninsular and Oriental boat at Alexandria, at the present time the accommodation on board the iron-clads not being very good?

  EMIGRATION — THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—PASSENGER ACTS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that the United States Government are
  984
  at present engaged in revising their Passenger Acts; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table a Copy of the proposed Bill, together with any Reports made by the Board of Trade thereon?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that there were at present two Bills dealing with this subject before the House of Representatives in the United States, and if they were passed ho would consider whether it was desirable to make a Report on the subject.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. J. HOULIHAN.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Houlihan, of Roscrea, was arrested on 4th November 1881, on a charge of inciting to Boycott; whether he is still detained in Kilkenny Gaol; whether, if convicted on said charge, his imprisonment would have been much shorter; and, whether he will be now released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. John Houlihan was not arrested as a punishment for the crime which he was reasonably suspected of having committed, but because his being at large in the district was not considered consistent with its peace. That is the essence of the Protection Act as compared with the Prevention of Crime Bill. The Lord Lieutenant has recently considered his case, and decided that he cannot at present be released with safety.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PATRICK AND JOHN CURLEY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Lieutenant has reconsidered the case of Patrick Curley and his son John Curley, at present detained in Kilmainham Prison; and, whether he can now order their release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has recently considered the cases of Patrick and John Curley, and decided that he cannot at present order their release.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. M. P. KENNY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  985
  land, Whether the case of Mr. M. P. Kenny, of Castlecomer, at present detained under the Coercion Act, has been reconsidered; and, whether ho can now recommend his release?
  MR. TEEVELYAN: Mr. Martin P. Kenny was released yesterday.

  IRELAND—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE —EDENDERRY.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the alleged conduct of the head constable of Edenderry, as reported in the "Leinster Leader" of June the 3rd, when a social concert was given at the residence, Lei-trim House, of Mr. Eugene O'Brien; whether the head constable, Macken, had any authority either under the existing law, or by direction from the authorities, to stop in the street and threaten Mr. Eugene O'Brien, his brother, Mr. Michael O'Brien, the Poor Bate Collector, and Mr. Andrew Pelin, that if they attended this concert he would report them, and suggesting pains and penalties in case of their attendance; whether the head constable attended at the concert with a large body of men, and threatened that in the event of any interference with his note taking he would shoot the people; whether the programme of the concert had been previously submitted to and approved by the police; whether if the allegations are well founded he will now remove head constable Macken from this district; and, whether the head constable has publicly stated that he does not care about any Questions relating to his conduct being asked in Parliament, and that he will continue to act as he may desire?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have inquired into this matter, and find that the newspaper account of the transaction is incorrect in important particulars. The head constable acted under the directions of his superior officers, who had reason to believe that the concert was being held for an illegal purpose. The head constable was ordered to take the names of those attending. He denies that he used any of the language attributed to him. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that he threatened to shoot the people. He had no conversation with Eugene O'Brien. He did tell Michael O'Brien
  986
  that he had sufficient force with him to enable him to carry out his orders, and he met Mr. Andrew Pelin in the street and advised him, as an Assistant National School Teacher, not to attend the concert. The programme had not been submitted to the police for approval. The head constable denies that he ever said he does not care about Questions in reference to his conduct being put in Parliament. The Inspector General informs me that he is a man of excellent character, and there is no reason why he should be removed from the district.

  IRELAND—THE "TREATY OF KILMAINHAM."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have not given him private Notice; but the Question is of sufficient importance to justify me in putting it without Notice. It is this. There is a rumour very current that there is another letter which was submitted to the Cabinet with reference to the Kilmainham Treaty—a letter written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to the 'hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford County (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)— and that that letter was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and by him submitted to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That is the report which is current. If that is correct, I feel quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will at once say so; and if it is incorrect, this will give him an opportunity of denying it. But if it is correct, I shall ask him whether that letter cannot be produced and laid upon the Table?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether he is not aware that there are at least 100 other rumours current about the Kilmainham Treaty; and whether he will take the trouble to answer each and every one of them?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on this subject has been uniform from the first. But, in the first place, I would say that I do not think it is quite courteous on the part of the hon. and gallant Baronet to put a Question about the "Kilmainham Treaty," he knowing perfectly well that I have

  987
  many times denied that any Treaty, compact, understanding, or whatever he may like to call it, exists, or ever has existed, between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The hon. and gallant Baronet is quite welcome to retain his own private opinion on the matter; but it is not courteous, becoming, or Parliamentary on his part to put Questions to me in regard to the "Kilmainham Treaty." With regard to the subject itself, the ground taken by Her Majesty's Government has always been this—that the Act of Parliament committed exclusively to Her Majesty's Government the business of imprisoning and of releasing under the Protection of Person and Property Act, and that it was no part of our duty or business at all to produce to the House of Commons the evidence upon which we proceeded either in imprisoning or in releasing. Now, it is out of no want of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Baronet that I am obliged to adhere to that ground, because I feel that that was the sense and spirit of the Act of Parliament, which I am not at liberty to disregard. Any attempt on our part to have produced the evidence upon which we proceeded would have been, in my opinion—and in the opinion, I think, of my Colleagues—an attempt to carry over to Parliament a responsibility which was entirely and exclusively our own. For that reason, I am not disposed to enter at all upon the discussion of the subject which the hon. and gallant Baronet has opened; and if he desires the production of a document, which, I think, it is no part of our duty to produce, it is not for me in the least to say to whom he should address his application.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will feel that it was from no want of courtesy that I addressed the Question to him. I heard the rumour. I thought it an important Question, and I put it direct. The right hon. Gentleman has not denied that there was such a correspondence; but he referred me to somebody else, and I should like to know to whom I should apply to have the letter produced?
  MR. SEXTONinquired how many persons were now in custody, how many were classified by the Government as associated with crime, and what was the
  988
  cause of the delay in the release of those not so classified?
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTsaid, the question of the "Kilmainham Treaty" had become so important that he begged to give Notice that he would ask the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) if on the occasion of his visit to Kilmainham he was not accompanied by another Gentleman?

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th June.]
  [TENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART II.

    OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT.
    Clause 5 (Riots and other offences).
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was to omit Sub-section (b) of this clause. The Sub-section provided that—
    "Within six months after the execution of any writ of possession, or decree for possession, of any house or land, every person who takes or held possession of such house, or land, or any part thereof, without the consent of the owner, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    This provision would turn what might be a mere act of residence into an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment. Any member of a family, or anyone in attendance upon a family, who took possession of a house, or land, temporarily, for purposes of shelter, from which the tenant had been evicted, would come within the moaning of the clause. He did not imagine that the Government intended to make such an act of trespass a crime punishable by six months' imprisonment; and if they insisted upon the clause it ought to be qualified by being applied to cases of wrongful possession. There certainly should be some notice to a person who might have

    989
    committed an act of trespass that if he unreasonably withheld possession he would be guilty of a crime. A case might arise of a person, who, quite innocently, took shelter in a part of premises from which a man had been evicted, and it would not be right to bring such a person within the power of the section.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Sub-section (£).—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the Clause."
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the question really at issue was whether the law of Ireland should be observed, because it was the law, or whether it should be disregarded with impunity, wherever it did not happen to fall in with the views of a part of the community. It had frequently occurred of late that a tenant, on whom a notice of ejectment had been executed, and whose equity of redemption had long expired, had resumed possession of the holding and made use of it in defiance of the law; and the proposal now was that such an offender, instead of being charged at Quarter Sessions for taking and holding forcible possession, should be summarily tried for what might be called a trespass in contempt of the law. The necessity for this depended upon whether the offence had been a common one, and whether the law, as it now existed, was found adequate to deal with it. He found, from the Returns submitted to the House, that up to the year 1880 the taking and holding forcible possession of property was almost an unknown thing in Ireland; but in 1880 and 1881 no less than 147 cases had occurred, and of these 113 had gone entirely unpunished. He believed, further, that in a considerable proportion of the 34 convictions, the tenants forcibly holding possession had incurred no penalty beyond having been required to come up for judgment when called upon, because the Crown Solicitor, knowing that there was very little chance of obtaining a verdict if the case went to a jury, was prepared to accept a compromise. If the case had gone to a jury, it was almost certain that a jury would have acquitted, in face of the evidence, or have disagreed. There was also a great difficulty in obtaining evi-
    990
    dence that the taking possession had been accompanied by actual violence. It was obvious that unless a man was seen to take forcible possession, it was difficult to prove that he had broken down a door or a fence, although the door might have been securely made up before, and although there was no dispute that he had been acting in defiance of the law, which had given possession to someone else. The offence was the outcome of the lawlessness which at present existed in Ireland. He might instance what had happened in the Province of Ulster, as showing the danger of allowing it to be committed with impunity. In 1880 there was only one offence in Ulster of this kind; in 1881 there were 12 cases out of a total of 65 in the whole of Ireland; and in the five months of the present year there had been eight cases out of 19, notwithstanding that within a quarter of a century previous to 1880 there had been only 30 cases of holding forcible possession in the whole of the country. In point of fact, it came to this— that the law at present was not sufficient to deal with these cases; and the Government, who were well qualified to judge, were of opinion that this alteration was necessary, in order to give efficacy to the Act. It should be remembered that although the punishment of the offence was a sharp one, nobody would incur it who did not wilfully expose himself to it. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the reason why the Government could not accept this Amendment was this —The object of the clause was to strengthen the law. It was found that the ordinary law was defective, and was brought into contempt. What was it that occurred? He was able to speak from personal knowledge, and what occurred was this. A decree was obtained in the Civil Court for ejectment for the non-payment of rent, and it was executed. Possession was given up to the landlord, and, apparently, everything was perfectly regular. The place was fastened up and made secure, or some caretaker was put in. The caretaker who had been put in happened to go away for a time, and the next day all the family who had been displaced went back again to the holding; and there

    991
    was no power of dealing with them, be- cause the Civil Court which had issued the execution could not deal with the case as one of contempt of Court. In regard to the Superior Courts, a writ taken out there was executed in the same way, and possession was given up. The result of that was that the power of the writ was fully expended and the execution was exhausted; and the Superior Court had no means in the world of dealing with the person who had broken the law, unless an expensive process was resorted to of appealing again to the Court for the punishment of the person who had treated the order with contempt. These were obvious reasons why there should be a change in the law. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would see that this was a matter which ought to be dealt with; and the Government proposed to deal with it by making it an offence punishable summarily. The maximum punishment was six months' imprisonment; but it was a maximum punishment, and need not necessarily be imposed in all cases.
    MR. HEALY: It is to be accompanied by hard labour.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hard labour was only optional, nor was it likely that the Court would inflict it in a case in which it was not well deserved. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had put the case of a person who was acting innocently—that was, a man who took possession without knowing that he was committing any offence at all. That was the case which appeared to have been contemplated by an Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), who proposed to insert the word "knowingly." He saw no objection to the insertion of this Amendment; but he certainly thought that the person who did that knowingly committed an offence.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must imagine that the people of Ireland were extremely innocent in regard to the manner in which the law was administered in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the penalty of hard labour was an optional penalty; but they did not forget the fact that it was
    992
    left to the discretion of two stipendiary magistrates who were landlords, and probably with a dash of militaryism added. It was absurd, therefore, to say that the penalty of hard labour would be optional, because anybody who knew anything of the tribunal would know that the stipendiary magistrates would inflict the heaviest penalties the law allowed them to inflict. It was very difficult to understand the clause as to the effect of taking and holding forcible possession. The clause, as proposed by the Government, was a very elastic and dangerous one. They spoke of taking and holding possession as an alternative, without any element of an offence in it at all. Now, he found that the offence as specified in the Act of Parliament was provided for in a different way—it was by taking and holding forcible possession.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there were two alternative offences known to the law—namely, taking and holding possession, and another taking and holding forcible possession.
    MR. SEXTONregretted that the Government had not considered it desirable to tabulate any of these offences, except the graver one of taking and holding forcible possession. They were now inventing, for the purposes of this Coercion Act, a new offence, a kind of double-barrelled offence, of taking and holding without force. His own opinion was that they were adding to the existing offence something that was not called for by the necessities of the case. There was not shown a necessity for this provision. The offence had decreased under the ordinary law. In the year 1880, the number of cases of taking and holding forcible possession in the whole year was under 82, and the number of convictions in respect of these offences was 12—that was to say, that in the year 1880, out of 82 cases there was only one case out of seven in which a jury convicted. Last year did that class of offence increase? It certainly did not, because the number fell from 82 to 65, and the convictions were 22. He commended to the attention of the Committee this extraordinary fact—that offences of this class fell from 82 in the year before last to 65 in last year, whereas the convictions in 1880 were one out of seven, the convictions last year were one

    993
    out of three. Would any Member of the Government get up and show cause why the clause should be retained in the Bill in the face of the fact that the offence had diminished, and that the efficiency of the jury in relation to the offence had been trebled? He was amazed that it should be considered necessary to deal with such an offence under such circumstances. The cases themselves were very peculiar. A poor person, driven out of his home, in despair of finding shelter, went back for a week or two until he could make other arrangements. He remembered a case of a poor woman who was met upon the high road and asked why she was crying. She said—"I am not crying, but my eyes are sore." Now, that poor woman used at night to put her children into the house from which she had been dispossessed, and to wait outside, watch for the night patrol, and when she heard it approach, she took the children out of the house and concealed them behind a hedge until the police disappeared. It was for an offence of this kind that the Government proposed to give the military magistrates the right of imprisoning a man for six months with hard labour. He defied the Government to show a shadow of justification for the course they proposed to take. Whereas in the month of April these offences were 13 in number, they had fallen, according to the Returns, in the month of May to six. They had, therefore, the fact that there was a lessening of the number of offences, and an increase in the efficiency of the military tribunal; and yet the Attorney General for Ireland, in the face of these facts, stood up and told the Committee that the ordinary law was insufficient to deal with them. He defied the Attorney General for Ireland or the Government to prove it. The ordinary law was increasing in efficiency, and he claimed for the jury system in Ireland that the ordinary law had been fully adequate to meet the necessities of the case. He, therefore, invited the Government to explain why they had invented a new phraseology in the matter, and why this sub-section was to include matters which had never been known to the law as offences before.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Ebrington) had assorted that this legis-
    994
    lation was the outcome of the offences which had arisen in Ireland in consequence of the disturbed state of that country. It appeared to him (Mr. Rylands) that it was the outcome of the fact that evictions took place in largo numbers in Ireland. He was quite ready to concede to the Government everything they considered necessary for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that they had, from time to time, Returns from Ireland proving that whilst the House was on the threshold of beneficent legislation for that country, the landlords were putting into force extreme rights; and, whatever might be said about this Bill, it would certainly tend to strengthen their power of using their legal authority. What were evictions? It might be said that some of them were just evictions. It was impossible for him to say what the individual circumstances of the cases were; but this he did know, that for many years past excessive rack rents had been exacted in Ireland, and that the arrears they were about to deal with arose out of these rack rents. Eviction was the only mode by which the landlords were able to get rid of the tenants who had fallen into arrear; but the arrears had themselves accrued in consequence of the landlords themselves charging 25 per cent, and in some cases 40 or 50 per cent, more of rent than they were entitled to charge. Parliament was asked to strengthen the power of the landlords; and he agreed with hon. Members opposite that many hundreds of people were constantly being unjustly evicted, including men, women, and children, and very often children at the breast, or children of very tender years. He believed, from all the evidence he had been able to obtain, that out of every 100 persons who were driven out of their homesteads into the roadside and, perhaps, into the workhouse, there were probably 25 per cent who were in reality placed under the sentence of death. What he contended for was that something should be done to put a stop to this evil. He had the greatest confidence that the Government were sincerely anxious to do justice to the Irish people, and he believed the measures they had in contemplation would, if they were passed, do a great deal to relieve the country from the pressure which

    995
    had its natural outcome in crime and in disturbance. But what would happen before these beneficent arrangements could be passed? They could tell what would happen from what was happening. They knew that thousands of people every month were being driven out of their homesteads by the landlords. They knew, further, that the landlords were endeavouring under the Act of last year to break the present tenancies in order that the future tenants should not have any rights under the Act of 1881. Of course, he did not justify the use of any violence in opposition to the law; but he contended that the Government ought to have some regard to the justice and equity of the case; and what he should like to see the Government do, if it were at all possible for them to do it, was this—that if in the measure they were bringing forward they strengthened the power of the landlords, there should be a truce, and that the Bill should include a provision to stop these unjust evictions until the House of Commons and the Government might have the means, by future legislation, of dealing with them. With regard to this sub-section, he was very much influenced by the opinion of his hon and learned Friend near him (Mr. C. Russell), on whose calm judgment he placed the greatest reliance. He had avoided voting in favour of many of the Amendments proposed to the Bill; but he should be glad, indeed, if, in connection with this Bill, there could be a message of peace to Ireland that the people there would appreciate. [A laugh.] It was no laughing matter. He should like to see a measure that would provide for a short period— perhaps for 12 months—to put a stop to these evictions, which were so greatly complamed of by the Irish people, so that Parliament might have an opportunity, in that time of truce between the two parties to the present land war, of passing a substantial measure for Ireland. Ho believed that such a course would do much to prevent crime in Ireland, and would give them more hope for the future than they could expect from exceptional legislation.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down intimated in the course of his speech that he desired this Bill to pass, and he (Mr. Gibson) understood him to suggest to the Committee that he desired it to pass speedily. All
    996
    he (Mr. Gibson) could say, if that was the hon. Member's desire, and those were his wishes, that the speech he had just delivered was not calculated to advance them, and the suggestion he had made for the introduction of new clauses would load to endless debate, and was certainly a suggestion which must have been made at a time when the hon. Member had not the wishes he professed very distinctly present to his mind. He regretted that the hon. Member should at this time, when appalling crimes were reported daily from Ireland, have used such an euphonism as "land war." The word "war," at the time when assassinations were being perpetrated, was not the word to employ; and he regretted that the hon. Member should have raked up these topics, which had been disposed of over and over again, and which, as often as they were stated, he should feel it his duty at once to object to, and that was that the crimes which were at present disgracing Ireland were directly traceable to the consequences of eviction. That was the statement which had no foundation whatever; and anyone acquainted with the true facts, and who desired to present the facts in their true significance to Parliament, knew perfectly well that the figures of crime and the figures of eviction demonstrated that crime was not in the slightest degree proportionate to evictions. ["Hear, hear!"from the Irish Members.] Yes; the crimes were found to be very numerous where evictions were very few, and, on the other hand, where evictions were very great crimes wore found to be very scanty. It was worthy of note that people who disputed these facts, worked up their figures by dragging in counties like some of the counties in the North of Ireland, where there were sometimes a considerable number of evictions, and put them in an average with other counties in different parts of Ireland where there were more crimes and fewer evictions. That was a matter which had been disposed of several times, and by nobody more powerfully than by the Prime Minister in January last, when he dealt with the subject in short and vigorous sentences, which he (Mr. Gibson) would commend to the attention of anyone who had any doubt on the subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) dealt very ingeniously with the question

    997
    —with that ingenuity which the hon. Member exhibited in every debate. The drift of his argument was, that inasmuch as they could count the offences by 80's, and 60's, and 70's in one year, and that there had been 12 convictions one year and 22 in another, the proportions of convictions showed no decrease.
    MR. SEXTON: I mentioned those facts simply to show the efficiency of the ordinary tribunals.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that efficiency was to be measured by the circumstances under which the convictions were recorded. He was speaking in the presence of the Law Officers of the Crown; but he believed that anyone who had read the records would know that many of these convictions were in reality pleas of "guilty" entered into by a kind of arrangement by which the persons charged were released on entering into their recognizances to come up for judgment when called upon. That arrangement was consented to because there was a feeling that, if the case went to a jury, there would be either a disagreement or an acquittal. The circumstance did not prove that any great confidence was to be placed in the existing machinery for administering the Criminal Law. It might in some cases work very well, and he thought it was right and, proper wherever a prosecutor could accept a plea of "guilty" that he should do so, and trust that the offender would become a good citizen in the future; but there were cases upon which they could not rely upon the present mode of administering justice being at all satisfactory. The real way to look at the point was that in which it had been presented in the clear and forcible speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Ebrington)—namely, that these offences, whether they numbered 80 or 65, were in reality of recent growth and development. A few years ago no such figures could have been stated. It was only within the last two or three years that anything like that development—that growth of figures had—occurred in regard to that offence of taking forcible possession, or insisting on resuming possession, or retaining possession contrary to the law. Everyone acquainted with Ireland or the Irish Press knew perfectly well that one of the most notable methods of the Land League, and one of its most potent agencies of terrorism,
    998
    was the forcible replacing in possession of tenants after they had been dispossessed by process of law. Very often after a man had been evicted he was replaced against his will, and kept there and maintained by the strong power of the Land League, and in many cases a man was replaced more than once. It was by that means that this method of defying the law had grown into existence in Ireland, and it was highly desirable that some means should be taken for dealing with it. The power was one which, like all other powers, must be administered with prudence, caution, and justice; but, as had been explained by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Ebrington), if the present law was found sufficient in that deplorable state of things in Ireland, they would not be there at this moment discussing this Bill. It was only because within the last two years there had been developed new methods of crime in Ireland, which had disorganized society, that they were compelled to have recourse to new methods for dealing with them. He hoped the law would be administered tempered with justice, and with due consideration for everything that was entitled to be considered, but with firmness and with a desire to secure whatever was right in the interests of peace and tranquillity. In regard to the tribunal which was to administer the law, he believed that no tribunal could be suggested which would not be criticized with severity. The tribunal selected here was that of two Resident Magistrates. If the Government had selected the ordinary unpaid magistracy of the county, they would have been open to criticism, in order to show that their tribunal was not entitled to the confidence of the people, and was not entitled to credit. It was said that in England the trades union disputes were administered by the English magistrates, who were not different from the ordinary magistracy of Ireland, and that it was administered by them without the intervention of a jury. But, surely, they must look at the question from a reasonable point of view. In England the magistrates were selected from a class fitted by education and training to perform the functions of magistrates. There must always be a difference between the social position, education, and training of the persons

    999
    selected to try offences of this kind and the people who had committed them, and, as a matter of course, it was absolutely necessary that the magistrates should he selected from the class who were educated gentlemen, but not invariably of the landlord class. Many of them were barristers, whose fathers had no connection with the land at all, some of them were officers, and others were connected with different pursuits. They were all, he believed, educated. He did not profess to have any special acquaintance with the Resident Magistrates of Ireland, although he knew a good many of them; but he believed them to be honourable men, desirous to do their duty according to their lights as well and fairly as they could. He hoped, therefore, although in this discussion there might be questions which would be treated from opposite points of view in regard to the tribunal which was to be selected, and in reference to which every hon. Member was entitled to indulge in criticism, that the discussion would proceed as far as possible without personal charges on the men who were called upon to perform an onerous duty under very difficult circumstances.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The debate upon this matter has not been strictly kept within the letter of the sub-section now before the Committee. With regard to the subject under investigation, I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who has given, no doubt, a painful but a laudable support to the Government on the Bill, will feel, on reflection, that his suggestion would only lead to a hopeless complication of the subject, and to a great widening of it and loss of time. It would likewise have the effect of raising most doubtful principles were we to attempt, by a Proviso in the Bill, to restrain landlords in respect to evictions. The best mode by which we can deal with the subject is to make as great expedition as possible with this Bill, and also with the one dealing with arrears of rent, which will, no doubt, have an important bearing on the number of evictions. Allusion has been made also, and I do not wonder at it, in this short discussion and in several others to the nature of the tribunal—a consideration which materially affects the view of lion. Members opposite as to the new tribunal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite
    1000
    (Mr. Gibson) has stated what I believe is perfectly fair and just as regards the Resident Magistracy in Ireland; but, at the same time, I am bound to say, in repeating what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that we are most anxious the summary jurisdiction provided should be exercised by an unexceptional tribunal. The Government desire materially to improve the provision as it stands in the Bill, and we are of opinion that it is capable of being improved. I will not now attempt to tie down the Government absolutely to the final form of the provision; but we think the efficiency of the clause would not be diminished if we introduced a Proviso that one of the two Resident Magistrates, to whom these cases are to be submitted, should be a person who has received a legal education. This will, in every sense, be admitted to be an improvement in the Bill. It is not an unfair claim to make, and it would certainly not diminish the efficiency of the Bill, while tending to prevent any possible abuse. Therefore, I hope that, for the present, we may dismiss the question of the tribunal, and consider these proposals on their merits. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has distinctly stated that the Government consider this to be an essential sub-section, and by that proposition I entirely abide. My learned Friends have given the best consideration in their power to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who pointed out that in this sub-section we are carrying over to the class of criminal offences acts which are now only the subject of a civil action. We feel the force of that objection, and the Attorney General for Ireland said he was willing to modify the clause by introducing the word "knowingly;" but, on consideration, we think the better way would be to allow the sub-section to apply only to that which is now a criminal offence—namely, the taking and holding "forcible" possession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gibson), in reciting the object and purport of the clause, pointed out that that is its real effect. The Members of the Government who spoke last night, explained that its object was not to create a new

    1001
    criminal offence, and it is in fulfilment of that explanation that we make this proposition. The Government are quite willing to introduce the word "forcibly" before "takes or holds." This would place the whole clause on one definite and consistent basis, and make it com-formable to the profession made on behalf of the Government—namely, that the object of the clause is not to create new criminal offences, but to provide a more effective mode of trial for certain classes of offences.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I desire, before the debate on this clause proceeds further, to express a hope that my silence will not be misunderstood. I think it is irregular to introduce subjects very largely affecting the state and the future of Ireland with regard to evictions. I, therefore, hope that the discussion will be strictly confined to the Amendments, and that it will not be extended to these large and general subjects.
    MR. DILLONremarked, that the spirit with which the Amendment had been met was a new departure on the part of the Government. He wished that the same spirit had been displayed before, and they would have proceeded much more rapidly with the Bill. He was bound to say that the Prime Minister, in regard to this Amendment, had met the Irish Members in a fair spirit, and he did not see why they should prolong the discussion upon the question. He had placed an Amendment upon the Paper; but he should ask leave to withdraw it. He thought the offer of the Prime Minister was a reasonable offer of compromise, and, for his own part, he accepted it. He only hoped that it might be an augury of the way in which the Irish Members were going to be met on the future clauses of the Bill, and that it was a new departure on the part of the Government which would be productive of satisfactory results.
    MR. MACFARLANE(who rose amid cries of "Agreed!") said, that hon. Members would only prolong the discussion by interrupting him. He was not in the habit of taking up the time of the Committee needlessly. All he wished to state was that the suggestion of the Prime Minister to associate a barrister with the Resident Magistrate in Ireland would be incomplete unless the barrister appointed was a non-resident in Ireland at the present time. He
    1002
    thought it would be an advantage if, in an exceptional matter of this kind, an Englishman was appointed instead of an Irishman.
    THE CHAIRMANwished to point out that the hon. Member was now discussing a question which would be better raised upon Clause 19.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLintimated that he was perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, before it was withdrawn, he wished to say that he presumed the Government only intended the clause to apply to agricultural holdings, and not to tenements in Dublin and places of that kind. He thought it would be necessary to limit the operation of the clause. He did not see why the class of tenements in Dublin should have all the powers which were given by the clause, and he would, therefore, suggest that it should be limited to holdings connected with agricultural and pastoral land.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, looking at the question from a landlord's point of view, he could not see that anything but forcible possession was aimed at. If he could have forseen that the clause was aimed at anything else, he should have voted against the sub-section. He thought the Government had acted wisely, and he rejoiced that they had agreed to add words to make it perfectly clear.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not intend to criticize what the Prime Minister had just said; but he must point out that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would necessitate some further alteration in the drafting of the Bill. The limitation of six months would now be out of place, and he was not quite sure as to the propriety of retaining the words "without the consent of the owner." The earlier words, however, would be plainly out of place.
    MR. MARUMwished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, before the Amendment was withdrawn, how it wa8 proposed to deal with cases which raised the question of title, such question being out of the jurisdiction of the magistrates in Petty Sessions?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said,

    1003
    in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), that he saw no reason why there should be any limitation of the clause to agricultural holdings; the object was simply to make an offence punishable summarily which was at present punishable by indictment. The Government were willing to strike out the words "without the consent of the holder." Those words were drafted in the clause with the intention of expressing what would probably be more correctly expressed by the word "forcible." The words which the Prime Minister proposed to introduce into the sub-section would make it still an ordinary and well-known offence of forcible entry or forcible retention. In regard to the six months, he differed from the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), and he should not be disposed to alter that part of the clause at all. As the law at present stood, there was no limitation of six months for an application to a Criminal Court for redress where a man took forcible possession of a house or forcibly retained it. But they were now constituting a new tribunal, with a summary mode of proceeding, instead of proceeding by indictment, and he thought it would be better to retain the limitation, which was calculated to meet the exigencies of the case.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not see much force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for retaining the power of inflicting six months' imprisonment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. O'Connor) had entirely misunderstood the point. It had nothing to do with six months' imprisonment, but simply to the limitation of the period within which the writ of possession should hold good.
    MR. HEALYpresumed that if a man made restitution and paid the rent, he would not come within the operation of the Act. As the clause now stood, it applied to a man who took or held a house or land without the consent of the owner; but the tenant might put himself right by paying the rent and costs.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the proposition of the Prime Minister
    1004
    was to substitute the words "forcibly takes or holds possession," instead of the words "without the consent of the holder."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland realized the importance of the Proviso relating to six months. When the Prime Minister, in his speech, pointed out that he desired merely to deal with the old, familiar, and existing system of taking forcible possession, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to propose to introduce those words without qualification, merely providing that it should be an offence which might be dealt with summarily. The statement of the Prime Minister was perfectly intelligible. He was merely taking up the old offence, which all of them were familiar with, of forcible entry, and that hitherto had been an offence triable at Quarter Sessions before a jury. But if these words were now taken out of the Bill, only a mutilated offence would be retained, and the law might be evaded in the readiest and most obvious way. A man would have nothing to do but to wait for the expiration of six months, and then he might go and take forcible possession with absolute impunity. As the Bill stood, after the expiration of six months, it would be impossible to take a man who committed this offence and get him punished summarily before a magistrate; but the case would have to be dealt with by the more expensive proceeding of a regular trial before a jury, who would be sure to disagree as to a conviction. Now, that was an obviously inconvenient method of dealing with the case. He had put an Amendment on the Paper to substitute 12 months instead of six; but he had no bigoted feeling in favour of this Amendment, and he was willing to give it up, and accept the proposal of the Prime Minister, provided the words "six months" were left out of the clause. But he certainly thought it would be desirable, when the clause was altered in accordance with the suggestion of the Prime Minister, that all reference to any period should be omitted. There was another reason why this Amendment should be pressed. Everybody acquainted with Ireland knew that the tenant evicted for non-payment of

    1005
    rent had a period of six months for redemption. Those six months held good from the date of the execution of the writ; but the landlord during that period could not deal with the possession of the farm, nor look upon it as his own. He could not make a new lease, nor a new letting, nor look about for a new tenant, and the farm, in the meantime, would be deteriorating. The possession by the landlord only amounted to a very uncertain kind of seizure, because at any moment within the six months the tenant could redeem the farm. [Mr. MARUM: Yes, by payment of the rent and costs.] The dispossession could only be for non-payment of rent. He was dealing with a class of cases where there was a power of redemption extended over a period of six months; and it was a very important period, because it was only at the end of the six months that the landlord would be able to look about for a new tenant, and it was that very important period—namely, when a landlord was about to make a new letting—that rendered him so unpopular in Ireland; and yet that was the very period which the clause took, by this limitation, for freeing the tenant from the terror of summary jurisdiction and for insisting upon the farm being left vacant. He was afraid it would only increase the evils against which the Bill was directed. He hoped that fact would be clearly realized; and he trusted that the Government would consider the matter before the Report, with a view to placing it on a fair and satisfactory footing. If they would give him a promise to that effect, he would be perfectly satisfied, and would at once resume his seat. He had no desire to insist upon the particular figure he had selected of 12 months. All he said was that six months would free the tenant who desired to resume possession from the terror of the summary jurisdiction provided by the clause; and, in the present state of Ireland, that was a most desirable thing. He thought it would be better either to take away all reference to periods, or to take some other period more extensive than six months — eight, nine, or ten months, if they liked; but it would be most unwise to free the tenant the very moment a new letting might be made. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to leave out "six," and insert "twelve."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LALORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no adequate reason why the penalty should be increased from six to 12 months' imprisonment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hon. Member was falling into the same error as that which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) fell into a short time ago. The question had nothing to do with the penalty at all. In regard to the Amendment, he would consider the suggestion made by his right hon. and learned Friend between the present time and the Report; but he would assure his right hon. and learned Friend that "six months" had not been put in the clause without serious consideration.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was quite satisfied with the promise of the Attorney General for Ireland, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that since the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had undertaken to consider this point, he would venture to make another suggestion—namely, that if the tenant who took forcible possession of a house or land within a period of six months after the execution of a writ of possession was to be punished with six months' imprisonment with hard labour, the landlord should also be punished if he burnt down or otherwise damaged the tenant's property. Within a period of six months, if the tenant paid the rent and costs, he was entitled to resume possession of the land which had been taken from him, because he had an equity of redemption. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that during those six months the landlord could not deal with the farm as his own; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that in frequent instances the landlord and his agents had burnt down the house of the tenant during that period of six months. They were now going to punish, by six months' imprisonment, the unfortunate tenant who, tempted by want of shelter, poverty, and cold, went back to his own

    1007
    home; while they left the landlord at liberty to burn the house which was the tenant's home, consecrated by the memories, perhaps, of his childhood, and which might become his home again. He hoped the Government would consider the propriety of introducing some provision into the Bill to restrain the landlord and his agents during that period of six months either from burning the house or damaging the property.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the law at the present moment was, that if during that period of six months the landlord did anything to injure the property, the tenant would be able to recover a good round sum of money in the shape of damages, which would enable him to build a new house.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the tenant might not have sufficient means to enable him to proceed against the landlord.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, at all events, the landlord had no legal right to take such an extraordinary step.
    MR. O'KELLYwished to know if the right hon. and learned Attorney General could give an instance where a landlord had been punished for burning the house of an evicted tenant? Such a case had frequently occurred; but he had never heard of the landlord being punished. If he could be punished criminally, why was he not arrested by the police and proceeded against?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that under this Bill, if the tenant did any injury to the property of the landlord, he could be punished criminally; but if the landlord did anything to the property of the tenant, he must be proceeded against civilly. He did not look upon that as equal justice; and he wished to add that if the Government made any further concessions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he (Mr. O'Connor) and his Friends would give a most strenuous opposition.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was glad that the Government were coming round to the Common Law definition of forcible entry which prevailed in England. He trusted that between the present time and the Report, or on a subsequent clause of the Bill, they would consider
    1008
    the propriety of limiting the punishment to be inflicted by the magistrates to imprisonment without hard labour. It was a well-known fact that the law with regard to forcible entry differed very much in severity in Ireland from what it was in England. In England they had to depend upon the Common Law for the power of punishing the offence of forcible entry; whereas, in Ireland, it was treated under one of the White boy Acts.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hon. Member was quite mistaken.
    MR. PARNELLunderstood that the offence was dealt with by one of the White boy Acts passed in the Reign of George III.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)remarked, that the offence came under a Statute of Richard II.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to go further back upon the law of the question than he was; but he had always understood that it was one of the Whiteboy Acts.
    MR. MARUM: It is the 26th of George III.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)dissented.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that when lawyers differed, he felt himself obliged to retire from the scene. The Attorney General for Ireland maintained that the offence was punishable under an Act of Richard II.; whereas, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), whose knowledge of law was very extensive, maintained that it was punishable under an Act of George III., which was one of the Whiteboy Acts. Personally, he was willing to leave the matter there. It was not dealt with by the Statute of Edward III., of which they had heard so much recently in regard to the refusal to supply provisions. What he wanted to get at was this. That this offence, when it was committed in England, was punished by imprisonment without hard labour; and he trusted that by the time they came to the clause dealing with punishments under this Act, the Government would be able to announce that they had decided, in reference to the offence of forcible entry, having re-

    1009
    gard to the fact that the eases would he disposed of under the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates, to dispense, at any rate, with hard labour.
    THE CHAIRMANwished to point out that the only question before the Committee was the withdrawal of the Amendment. The discussion was becoming too general.
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to submit one or two observations in reference to the conduct of the landlords.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already pointed out that the only question was the withdrawal of an Amendment to substitute 12 months for six. General remarks of this kind would be more regular afterwards.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name; but it would not be necessary to move it until the exact words of the proposal of the Prime Minister were placed before the Committee. His proposal was to substitute "due execution of the writ" instead of "the execution."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the word "due" would not be required now. The subsection would now run—
    "Within six months after the execution of any writ of possession or decree for possession of any house or land, forcibly takes or holds possession of such house or land, or any part thereof."
    The clause would stop there, omitting the words "without the consent of the owner."
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, those words would cover everything he wished to meet, and, therefore, he would not move his Amendment.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, it struck him, that although the Government Amendment covered the word "takes," they ought to have the word "forcibly" also before "holds," or to insert the word "forcible," as in the old Act, before "possession."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it would not be necessary to repeat the word "forcibly," because he intended to insert the word "forcible" before the word "possession,"
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, the word "forcible," in that case, would cover both "takes and holds."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the clause would run—"takes or holds forcible possession." He moved an Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 34, before the word "possession," insert the word"forcible."— (The Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question, "That the word 'forcible' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he now proposed, at the end of the same line, to omit the words "without the consent of the owner."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words "without the consent of the owner."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there omitted."
    MR. PARNELLasked, what was the absolute necessity for leaving the words out?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, they were mere surplusage now, as the word "forcible" fixed the character of the offence.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. MARUMsaid, the first Amendment which stood in his name—namely, after "takes," to leave out "or holds," and insert "forcible," had been disposed of by the insertion of the word "forcible" before "possession." His second Amendment, which was to substitute for "without the consent of the owner" "against the consent of the owner," was also disposed of. He had, therefore, to move now—
    In line 35, before the word "or" to insert the words "Provided, That no question as to title to lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest therein, or accruing therefrom, or as to any irregularity of legal procedure in the eviction or execution arises, or any devolution of the occupancy or tenancy, or ownership interest in the premises, takes place within the said period."
    He had copied the first portion of this Proviso from the Petty Sessions Acts. By those Acts, the jurisdiction of the magistrates was ousted whenever a ques-

    1011
    tion of title arose, and for a very good reason—namely, that it was incompetent to try an action for ejectment in a Petty Sessions Court, or to mate use of a criminal course of procedure in order to effect a civil object. That would be an extremely objectionable course; and, therefore, a saving clause was inserted in the Petty Sessions Act, and in the General Consolidation Act of the 24 & 25 Vict., the 46th section of which contained a saving clause, which he had merely copied in this Proviso. The next part of the Proviso made provision in a case where—
    "Irregularity of legal procedure in the eviction or execution arises, or any devolution of the occupancy or tenancy, or ownership interest in the premises, takes place within the said period."
    He thought that was a matter which ought not to be left to the jurisdiction of a Court of Petty Sessions or the stipendiary magistrates. A case of this kind arose only the other day. It was a case of an ordinary tenancy from year to year. On the death of the owner, the occupancy descended to the wife and children; but when the administration of the property was undertaken, it was found that there was no will, and it was doubtful who was the tenant. The landlord served a writ, got execution upon it, and sold up the tenancy in the name of the son. The mother, however, claimed it as her property. The son came to him (Mr. Marum) to know what he was to do; and, ultimately, the case was settled. He merely mentioned it to show that such a case could arise. It really was the case of the property of one person being sold for the debts of another. It was a most inconvenient matter that questions of title of any kind should be adjudicated upon, especially by a stipendiary magistrate. Therefore, his proposal was that questions of title should be removed from the jurisdiction provided by the clause, together with any devolution of the occupancy or tenancy, or ownership interest in the premises. They made it penal for the tenant to take forcible possession within six months of the execution of a writ of possession. But supposing a case of property devolving by the death of the owner upon the next-of-kin, and there were two heirs-at-law, there would be two parties claiming an interest in the property; and how would the tenant know with
    1012
    whose consent he was holding the premises? At the death of the landlord, the consent of the landlord would have ceased; but to which of the two heirs-at-law was ho to be subjected? The tenant could not know whose consent he was to obtain. Therefore, when the question of the devolution of ownership arose in a case of this kind, involving a question of title, he thought it was too much to give the power of jurisdiction to a stipendary magistrate, and enable him to determine who was the owner, so as to say whether the act of the tenant was with the owner's consent or not. The same thing would apply in regard to the tenancy. If a tenant got into possession and died within the six months, a question might arise as to the legal representative of the tenant, and it would be most inconvenient to have that question adjudicated upon in a summary way by a stipendiary magistrate. He therefore proposed that in all cases where complicated questions of title arose, the power of adjudicating at the Court of Petty Sessions should be removed. He thought the consent should be a continuous consent, and that it should determine with the death of either of the parties. He failed to see how a tenant could be dealt with by a criminal process of this kind in a case where a question of title was raised; and it was with a view to obviating that kind of inconvenience that he proposed the insertion of this Proviso. He did not know whether the Government would consent to accept it; but he hoped they would be willing to do something to remove the difficulty; and he would leave the Amendment to the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 35, before the word "or," insert the words "Provided, That no question as to title to lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or an}- interest therein, or accruing therefrom, or as to any irregularity of legal procedure in the eviction or execution arises, or any devolution of the occupancy or tenancy, or ownership interest in the premises, takes place within the said period."—[Mr. Marum.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment, and for this reason — because no question of title could arise

    1013
    under the clause. The Superior Court would have to determine every question of title; the Court would have given its judgment, and all that the Inferior Court, acting under the Act, had to do was to protect the person placed in possession by the writ or decree of the Superior Court.
    MR. MARUMasked, what was to be done if either of the parties died?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that if either of the parties died, new rights would arise and would be met in the same way. If after the execution of the decree of the Superior Court, possession was forcibly interfered with, the tribunal named by the Act could deal with the offence. If the parties died and new rights arose, they must, of course, be argued in the High Court of Justice, a decree obtained, and possession taken before this sub-section came into operation.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know how a case similar to that of Mr. H. Blake would be met? Mr. Blake, at Stradbury, took forcible possession of some premises by presenting a revolver at the head of a bailiff; and when he was brought up at the Petty Sessions, he said he was the owner of the property. The question was one of disputed title; but Mr. Blake constituted himself judge in the matter. Now, would such a person as Mr. H. Blake, who might be a magistrate, and constituted a judge of facts, be a fit person to carry out the provisions of this subsection? It was important to know exactly what the Government intended to do. He thought the case of Mr. H. Blake formed an excellent precedent, and there was much reason to fear that if a bad example were set by the magistrates, it was likely to be copied by the people.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) knew very well that the case of Mr. Blake had nothing to do with the matter. No decree had been made by any Court as to the possession of the property in Mr. Blake's case, and it was a question of disputed title. The object of the remarks of the hon. Member could only be to blacken the character of Mr. Blake; and he strongly objected to the hon. Member making statements, affecting the character of individuals, which were totally devoid of foundation.
    1014
    What took place in the case of Mr. Blake was this. The testator died, and he (Mr. Blake) believing that this portion of the property belonged to him by right, took possession of it. If a decree had been made by any Court, and then Mr. H. Blake had taken possession of the property in defiance of that decree, he would have been punished.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Government ought to give way upon this Amendment. He could not imagine that any mischief would arise from doing so, as it was a matter of notoriety that Courts of Petty Sessions did not entertain questions of title. If, on hearing a case, they discovered any question of title was involved, they dismissed it at once. But, in this case, the Government proposed to constitute a Court which would be able to entertain questions of title. The clause ran in this way—
    "Within six months after the execution of any writ of possession or decree for possession of any house or land, if any person takes or holds forcible possession of such house or land, or any part thereof, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    But, instead of presenting the case to the jury, it was proposed to submit it to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction thus conferred would practically constitute the Court the judges of what was the due execution of a writ of possession, and, practically, a very large variety of cases would be taken out of the hands of the Superior Courts. He submitted that in cases of this kind, which involved principles of law of great intricacy, they ought not to interfere too hastily or too rudely with old-established rights, and give the stipendiary magistrates this very extensive jurisdiction. It was very evident that Mr. Blake, to whom reference had been made, and who was a very fair example of the type from whom stipendiary magistrates would be made, for the purpose of enforcing this clause, if chosen, would not be a fit judge of questions of title, or whether a writ of possession had been properly executed or not. According to the admission of the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), on one occasion Mr. Blake considered that it was a proper method of taking possession of property in regard to which the ownership was disputed by presenting a revolver at the head of the person in charge of it.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I never said anything of the kind, and I never mentioned anything as to the propriety of Mr. Blake's proceedings.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Member had certainly disputed the contention of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the method of Mr. Blake, in proceeding with a revolver to take forcible possession of the premises, was contrary to law. Ho (Mr. Parnell) understood Mr. Blake's defence to be that he found the key in the door and entered without force. But if Mr. Blake considered that this practice of threatening the person in charge with a revolver was the proper way to solve the question in regard to a disputed will, it was, to say the least of it, a very singular mode of proceeding. What guarantee had they that they might not have a stipendiary magistrate appointed of the same calibre? They might have a case like that of Mr. Keating, at Wood's Gift, who took possession of property without any process of law at all, and without any writ of possession. He (Mr. Parnell) thought it was of the utmost importance that Parliament should show the Irish Members that they desired to proceed in accordance with the process of law, and not with unnecessary haste of any kind. By putting this power of deciding a question of title in the hands of the stipendiary magistrates they would deprive the peaceable subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland of all the guarantees they now enjoyed.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), with all his ingenuity, would not succeed in fastening upon him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) a statement which he had not made. He had said nothing about the validity of Mr. Blake's act, and he had expressly stated that he did not excuse Mr. Blake. All he had said was, that that which was introduced as an analogous case was not an analogous case at all. There had been no decree of possession whatever; no steps had been taken by the Superior Court; and in such a case this section would not come into operation at all, seeing that it only applied to a case in which a decree had been made. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been attending to his duty a little earlier in the day, he would have heard the Prime Minister state that it was the intention of the Go-
    1016
    vernment to associate the local magistrates—whether Mr. Blake or anybody else—with a barrister, in order to carry out the provisions of the Act legally and properly.
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that, as regarded his non-attention to his duty, he could only say that he entered the House before the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry); and at the time it was supposed that he was not attending to his duty, he was in the Library hunting up the Acts bearing on the question of forcible possession. If he might be permitted to form an estimate of the candour of the hon. Member for Galway, and of the hon. Member's love of truth—[Cries of "Question!"and "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: These personal recriminations are certainly out of Order.
    MR. PARNELLdenied that he had made any personal recrimination against the hon. Member for Galway. He had not been permitted to proceed with his sentence, and he would respectfully claim the permission to do so before the Chairman proceeded to pass judgment upon him.
    MR. WARTON: Oh!
    MR. SEXTONrose to a point of Order. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been openly attacked, and he wished to know if the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was entitled, by continual interruption, to interfere with his hon. Friend when he was replying to a personal attack?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion has been going backwards and forwards to the case of Mr. Blake, which has no reference to the question before the Committee, and is merely wasting the time of the Committee. It is altogether out of Order.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, that he did not intend to enter into the Blake controversy; but he wished to say a few words, in the hope that they might induce the Committee to give a favourable consideration to the Amendment. What was the purport of the Amendment? It was that if there was a bond fide question of title raised before the stipendiary magistrate, his jurisdiction should be ousted. That was really the sum and substance of the Amendment which had been put upon the Paper by his hon.

    1017
    and learned Colleague in the representation of the County of Kilkenny (Mr. Marum). It might be contended the insertion of these words was unnecessary. In a Bill of this character, however, and having regard to the powers proposed to be vested in these tribunals, it was desirable the question should be freed from doubt, and made clear in the Bill. No doubt, as had been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), a statement had been made by the Prime Minister that the stipendiary magistrate would have legal assistance. That statement was of a very vague character. It was in no way indicated what were to be the qualifications of those legal assessors, or in what manner or on what occasions they were to give their aid to the magistrates. It might be said that they were raising questions which were not often likely to arise; but he thought that questions of this kind might not unfrequently come before the magistrates. Hon. Members knew very well that in taking possession of land questions frequently arose as to the boundaries. Very often a writ went down directing the Sheriff to take possession of certain property, and the tenant claimed a right, under the Statute of Limitations, to certain portions of it, and contended that they were excluded from the operation of the writ. In such a case a bond fide question of title would arise. The tenant might say—"I am your tenant for 16 acres, but you have no right to an additional five acres, and, therefore, I shall continue holding the land. "There, at once, a question of title arose. But if they passed this section as it stood, the tenant would, under such circumstances, be subjected to the summary jurisdiction of the stipendiary magistrates. He entertained no unfriendly feeling for the Irish magistrates as a body. Many of them had, he considered, been unreasonably assailed. At the same time he should be most unwilling to see matters left to the arbitrary decision of any magistrate. There was an old but a very true saying—"The discretion of the Judge is the law of tyrants. "The local magistrates, who must be prejudiced to a great extent, in consequence of mixing with a particular class of persons in Ireland, would inevitably be biassed in favour of the landlords; and it was, therefore, import-
    1018
    ant that Parliament should safeguard this Act in every possible way. He wanted to know from the Government if it was not their intention that the magistrates should be restrained from adjudicating in any case in which a bond fide question of title arose? If it was, why not accept the Amendment, and place the matter beyond all doubt.
    MR. LALORsaid, he wished to put this case. Suppose the tenant, who had been put out of possession for two or three months, went and offered the rent to the landlord, that the landlord refused to accept it, and that thereupon the tenant went back, broke down the door, and took possession of the house and land. Would they have that man sent by the magistrate to gaol for six months for taking possession of the farm, after having offered the full rent and costs? He was acquainted with a case in his own neighbourhood in which this actually occurred last October. The tenant had been out of possession for five months, but his period of redemption amounted to six months. Just before the period of redemption expired, the landlord deliberately left the place, and went out of the country, and the tenant, not being able to find, him, was not able to pay the rent. When the landlord came back, a week after the time had expired, he claimed the right to keep possession, and the tenant was therefore deprived of his right of six months' redemption. He (Mr. Lalor) thought that, in this and in similar cases, it was most unjust to deprive a tenant of his power of redemption.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was a singular thing how a case of that kind could have occurred. It was utterly illegal from beginning to end. Where the tenant was prepared to pay the rent and costs to the landlord, there was an easy way of arriving at a solution of the difficulty. All he had to do was to lodge the money in Court, and if the landlord refused to give up possession the cost of re-instating the tenant in possession would fall upon him.
    MR. LALORsaid, the tenant might not have more money than was sufficient to pay the rent and costs. After doing that, he might have nothing left to pay the lawyer.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said,

    1019
    that any lawyer would have readily taken up such a case for him.
    MR. PARNELLasked if the Government would have any objection to simplify the proceedings, and, instead of compelling a tenant to go to Dublin under Dease's Act, which required him to lodge the money in Dublin, to enable him to lodge it in the Magistrates' Court, or the County Court where the ejectment had been obtained? It might simplify the proceedings if, under the Bill, the money were allowed to be lodged in the Magistrates' Court.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that would be, of course, entirely foreign to what they were dealing with in the present instance. At the same time, he thought the suggestion was not an unreasonable one to carry out in any Bill dealing with the relations between laud-lord and tenant. He would be the last person to wish to deprive the tenant of facilities for re-possessing himself of his holding.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he wished to point out that the case which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) was not at all an imaginary one. Last week he had a letter from a constituent of his own from the county of Roscommon. In that case the landlord was resident in England, and was not accessible. The tenant held a small farm of five acres, and upon that small farm his residence was fixed. He had paid his rent up to the day, but he had another farm considerably larger, upon which he had allowed the rent to get into arrear. For the arrears on the second farm a writ of ejectment was obtained, and the Sheriff, acting under the writ, went down and evicted the man from both. The tenant put the case to the Sheriff, and told him he had no writ against the small holding, in regard to which the rent had been duly paid; but the Sheriff stated that he had no alternative but to carry out the writ in reference to both holdings. Accordingly, he evicted the man and locked the door upon him. Now, it would be a very hard case indeed if that man, going back to his own house for shelter, broke down the door and took possession, and then was sent to prison by a magistrate for six months under the provisions of this Bill. Ho hoped the Government would introduce Borne guarding words into the clause, in
    1020
    order to prevent the hardship complained of.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 37; Noes 244: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, before he moved the Amendment standing in his name, he wished to add the words "or for county cess." The subsection, if his Amendment were adopted, would run thus—-"or rescues any cattle or goods seized under any decree or for county cess. "The reasons in favour of this Amendment were obvious. The clause, as it stood, proposed to deal with certain offences, but there was an obvious omission in respect of the offences to which his Amendment referred. Anyone who studied the history of the disturbed districts in Ireland during the last two years would know that there was nothing more common than combinations for the rescue of cattle or goods seized under the decree of some competent Court. There was this great disadvantage connected with the rescue of cattle or goods seized under the decree of a Court, that the authorities, in order to prevent the success of such attempts, were obliged to move large bodies of police and soldiers about the country for preventive purposes; the men, under these circumstances, being brought away from their duties, and also being brought into contact with excited mobs, which frequently gave rise to riot. The tendency which existed in Ireland to refuse to pay rent applied also to the rates made at county cess. The Government had in certain instances advanced money to the occupiers of land—for instance, the money advanced under the Seeds Bill—and the moneys recoverable were placed in the hands of the person who collected the county cess, and who was met with the same objection to pay as existed in the case of rents. Therefore, he thought, as they were dealing in this, clause with matters relating to the tenants, it was well that they should take special notice of these particular offences, and make it very clear that where any attempt occurred forcibly to rescue cattle or goods, or resist the county cess, they should be dealt with by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Without detaining the Committee at greater length, he trusted, for the reasons he had advanced, the Go-

    1021
    vernment would agree to this obvious improvement of the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 3, line 35, after the word" or, "to insert the words" rescues any cattle or goods seized under any decree or order of the county cess."—[Lord George Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to accept this Amendment, inasmuch as they had not found it necessary to take special powers for the purposes suggested. They found they could deal with the cases as they arose under the ordinary law without any need of special jurisdiction. The matter had not been overlooked by the Government. With regard to the county cess, as a general rule, when an order was made it rested with the Constabulary to carry it out, and he believed that the money had been generally recovered. The Government, however, did propose to make a slight alteration in the existing law; and in the last sub-section of this clause it would be seen it was made an offence, under this Act, to commit an assault upon any constable, bailiff, or process-server. It was the intention of the Government to extend that to other officers of the Court, and they believed that this alteration would meet the necessities of the case.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would naturally hear with pleasure the statement of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that he was able to deal with the evil complained of by his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton). He should, however, have been more satisfied if he could share the confidence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the capacity of the Government, under the existing law, to deal with the very serious evils to which his noble Friend had alluded. His noble Friend asked Her Majesty's Government to admit words which would distinctly lay down that the rescue of cattle or goods should be an illegal act. He could not understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say that this evil did not exist. Although his sources of information were no longer official, he had constantly before him accounts and reports of these acts, and
    1022
    as long as those accounts continued to fill the columns of the Press, he thought it was a matter to be deprecated, that the Government should not avail themselves of every means suggested to them for the purpose of putting down the evil complained of.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I said we were able to deal with them sufficiently by the ordinary law.
    MR. SYNANsaid, the argument of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, was that summary jurisdiction should be applied to every act committed in Ireland. Nothing was to happen in Ireland that was not to be thrust into this Bill and subjected to summary jurisdiction. But, for his own part, he was unable to see why offences perfectly well triable by the ordinary law, should be sent to a summary tribunal. Besides, questions of law might be raised in case of seizure of goods or cattle which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction would be unfitted to deal with. For instance, there might be a dispute as to ownership, or, again, a seizure might take place of cattle grazing on the land of a person who was not the owner, and it appeared to him most improper that such a case as this should go for decision before a summary tribunal. For these reasons, he hoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was glad the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had met this Amendment by reference to the actual facts of the case. There had been seizures of cattle some years ago in Ireland; but in the summer of last year the Irish Executive had adopted the course of warning the people against attending Sheriffs' sales, and the consequence had been that those sales were now conducted in the most peaceable manner—no breach of the law of any kind now occurred in connection with them. So far, then, as the offence which the noble Lord hoped to include in the Bill was concerned, he claimed that it had entirely disappeared from Ireland, and he thought it most objectionable that hon. Members upon the Front Opposition Bench should join together in inaccurate representations with regard to the offences in question.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the omission of Subsection (c). The crime of aggravated assault against the person was, by the Bill, triable by a special tribunal of three Judges. This sub-section also provided that the crime of aggravated violence against the person should be triable by summary jurisdiction. The result of this double provision would be that a person might be brought up and tried either by two magistrates or by three Judges constituting the Special Commission Court. Now, he was quite willing that they should be tried either by one or the other of these tribunals, but certainly not by both. Again, he contended that there was no reason whatever for removing the crime from the ordinary tribunals in Ireland, and in support of that statement he should again trouble the Committee with a reference to figures. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would do well to examine the Returns relating to these offences, because it was his contention that this sub-section was only based on false pretence and false assumption. In the year 1880, there were 87 cases of assaults endangering life; of these 46 were brought to trial, and out of those 46 eases 17 convictions resulted. Now, he said that these 17 convictions bore a very reasonable proportion to the number of trials. This proportion would bear a favourable comparison with the convictions of the same offences in England'; and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would not pretend in this case, as he had done in others, that the number of convictions was apparently large, because the actual number of offences was not stated. Again, in ordinary assaults the number was 131, and the convictions amounted to one in every three cases brought to trial. He did not expect the Home Secretary to give a satisfactory or an intelligible answer to these arguments in favour of the omission of the clause; but he would like to hear the Attorney General for Ireland, who might be supposed to be acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, offer some explanation as to why the Government resolved to have this double jurisdiction in the cases mentioned in the sub-section. In the
    1024
    year 1880, out of 87 cases of assaults, there were 17 convictions; in 1881 there were 127 cases and 34 convictions; the proportion in the latter case being as one to three, whereas, in the previous year, the proportion was only one to five. He should imagine that if the Government found it necessary to resort to exceptional jurisdiction, and took away trial by jury, they would have been able to show to the Committee that the proportion of convictions to the number of trials had decreased; but he had been able to show the Committee that a very large increase in the number of convictions had taken place, and that the crimes themselves had diminished in number. In the face of these figures, he regarded it as an unprovoked insult to Irish juries to take away from them the trial of these offences, and bring them before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Again, the number of offences had also decreased. Last year there were 127 cases of assault; and up to the month of May in the present year, a period of five months, there were only 36, whereas, if the offences had kept upon the same level as in the previous year, there would have been 50 cases during the five months. There had, in fact, been a reduction of one-third in the number of offences during the period named. He had never listened to so shabby a case for withdrawing offences from the ordinary tribunals. The Government were constantly speaking of the preservation of law and order, and the supremacy of the Crown in Ireland; but was it not a fact that between 1870 and 1881 the number of convictions by juries for these offences had nearly doubled, and that the offences themselves had been reduced by one-third in number? He contended that there was a complete case made out for leaving these offences within the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals; and he trusted that in his reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would restrain his natural eloquence, and, in a spirit of inquiry, address himself, to the facts of the case.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave out sub-section (c). —(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or commits' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. The whole of this matter had been discussed at great length on the 1st clause of the Bill. What the hon. Member for Sligo requested was, that aggravated crimes of violence should be left to trial by jury; but that the Committee bad already decided could not be the case, and to pursue the question farther would be simply to renew the general controversy which had taken place over Clause 1. It was plain that these offences might be of different degrees of magnitude, and if the Amendment of the hon. Member were adopted, it would be necessary to put into operation the Special Commission Court to try offences which might be adequately punished by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with six months' imprisonment. But the object of the sub-section was that offences which could be sufficiently dealt with by a sentence of two or three months' imprisonment should be brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. This proposal was certainly not an unreasonable one; and he regarded it as being rather in favour of the accused person than otherwise. It was quite in accordance with our law that offences of the kind referred to in the sub-section, which were not of a very grave character, should be disposed of by summary jurisdiction, instead of at the Assizes.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had, as usual, raised a false issue in attempting to show that, if this subsection were rejected, they must fall back on Clause 1 for the trial of these offences. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that this was not the issue at all. It was evident to him that the Government, in framing the Bill, did not consider that trial by jury had failed in respect of these offences. He failed to see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman had placed these offences in two clauses of the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was for the same reason that some offences were now triable, either at the Assizes or by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction—that was to say, because it was convenient to all parties. It would only be cases of violence against the person, almost approaching to murder, that would be dealt with under the 1st clause; the minor cases would be taken
    1026
    before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not see that the analogy was in any respect perfect, because in the one case there was a trial by jury, and in the other there was not. He was still unable to see why the Government included these offences in both clauses of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that they were so included; but the only reason given was that, in certain cases of offences in England, and, of course, in Ireland, the Crown had the right of deciding them by summary jurisdiction, or bringing them before a jury. But, in this case, the Crown claimed the right of bringing them before a tribunal without a jury. Now, he suggested that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that, on Report, he would give up the power of bringing those offences before the three Judges, Irish Members would, on their part, be willing to waive their opposition to their being inserted in the present clause, it being left to the magistrate to try them in the ordinary way. He submitted that this arrangement would give sufficient power to meet the necessities of the case; and, in view of the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Sligo, which showed that convictions for these offences by juries were at least equal, if not greater, than the convictions of last year, he thought that arrangement should be adopted.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to consider that an aggravated crime of violence might be of so grave a character, that the punishment of six months imprisonment would be obviously inadequate. Take the case of mutilation. They might have cases of the most cruel mutilation of persons which would not be adequately dealt with by a punishment of six months' imprisonment. If, then, this crime, which came next to murder in point of heinousness, was to be dealt with adequately, it was necessary that the Crown should have the right of bringing it before a higher tribunal than one of summary jurisdiction. The various crimes enumerated in the Bill were arranged in regular order. It would not be reasonable to leave arson and attacks on dwellings to be dealt with by the higher tribunal, and at the same time to leave the aggravated crime

    1027
    of violence against the person to be I dealt with in all cases by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. He could not see that any harm or injustice would accrue by reserving the power to bring this crime before either tribunal.
    COLONEL BARNEsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had forgotten some of the rules of arithmetic when he said that the proportion of convictions to crimes in cases of assaults was as one to three. The proportion was nearer one to four.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was strongly in favour of summary jurisdiction in cases of aggravated crimes of violence, and he wished that mode of dealing with them could have a greater application in Ireland than it had at present, because he was satisfied that as the magistrates were to have a legal element amongst them, justice would be done. Moreover there was sometimes great difficulty in getting a prosecution at the Assizes for aggravated assaults against the person. Cases of wounding on the way home from fairs were very common in Ireland, and it frequently happened that the clergymen and the friends of the accused in the neighbourhood endeavoured to prevent a prosecution. If the magistrates committed for trial the parties, their witnesses had, perhaps, to travel 50 miles, as was the case in Connemara, to the place where the Assizes were held, at great loss of time and at great expense. It therefore appeared to him that this offence would be put down with greater certainty by a speedy and moderate punishment of two or three months' imprisonment; and as he wished it to be dealt with effectively, he should support the clause, which appeared to offer the best means to that end.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) should withdraw his Amendment. Ho believed that prisoners, as a rule, preferred to be tried before an inferior tribunal; whereas, if this Amendment were adopted, they would be thrown upon the superior tribunal, where they would be tried at greater trouble and expense. In his view, it would be greatly in favour of the accused that he should be tried by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the
    1028
    Home Secretary had not answered the principal argument he had used in favour of leaving out this sub-section. He had shown that trial by jury had not failed in these cases, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made no attempt to meet that fact. He gave him great credit for that. The Home Secretary had said there might be aggravated cases of crime against the person too serious to be brought before magistrates. Would the Government agree to insert in the clause the offences of cutting, wounding, and maiming? He believed that an imprint would cover all the cases likely to arise.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would consider whether that could be done when the Interpretation Clause was reached.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government proposed to omit the word "crime," in line 36, and substitute for it the word "Act," in order to remedy an oversight of the draftsman, and make the sub-section accord with the wording of the 12th line of the Interpretation Clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the word "crime," and insert the word "Act" instead thereof. — (Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. PARNELLasked what was the meaning of the offence in law?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they denned it to be an assault which caused bodily harm, committed with the intent to do grievous bodily harm.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M'COANsaid, it would not be necessary, after the discussion which had taken place on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), for the omission of the last sub-section, to detain the Committee at any length in supporting the Amendment which he was about to move. It was only necessary to say that the arguments which the hon. Member for Sligo had advanced in favour of the omission of Sub-section (c) applied with still greater force to Sub-section (d). There might be reasons for retaining the former sub-section; but there were absolutely none, in his opinion, in favour of making the minor

    1029
    offences named in the latter sub-section punishable in the aggravated manner proposed in the Bill. It could not be contended that an assault upon a constable, bailiff, or process-server was one that it was necessary to deal with otherwise than by the ordinary law. It was an offence, from the consequences of which the person accused could not escape, owing to the absence of evidence, because the individual on whom the assault was committed would be the most competent of all witnesses, and on his evidence alone a conviction would be obtained. Therefore, the legal machinery for punishing an assault of this kind already existed in the Petty Sessions. He said that the effect of the sub-section was to invest policemen and others with something akin to the divinity which was supposed to hedge a king. It was monstrous that a minor offence, such as a knock-down blow, which, in the case of a farmer, would be met by a week's imprisonment, should, in the case of a policeman, bailiff, or process-server, be punished with six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It must be remembered that the police were always ready to interfere in any street row, or eviction, and to put a stop to the playing of street bands, and small matters of the kind; and it was only to be expected that they would meet with some disagreeable treatment under such circumstances. But if anyone should throw a handful of mud at a constable who so exposed himself, he would, under this Bill, be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Again, bailiffs were not the most conciliatory persons in the world, and were very often the cause of difficulties which were sometimes resented by the people in the neighbourhood; but under this sub-section, if a woman were even to throw an egg at a bailiff, she would be liable to the same punishment of six months' imprisonment. So, too, with process-servers; he supposed that nothing would be done in this way in future, where a process-server was concerned, that would not be construed as an assault, and dealt with by a punishment of six months' imprisonment. But this exaggerated application of the law was not only to apply to assaults on these persons when on duty; it would be applicable at all times and under all circumstances, and an ordinary bailiff coming from a public-house was, in the
    1030
    strict terms of the sub-section, invested with a personal sanctity. He contended that there was no reason why assaults upon persons of the classes referred to should be visited with this extreme punishment, and he believed that no sufficient case could be shown for retaining this sub-section in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Sub - section (d.)— (Mr. M'Coan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or commits' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government were unable to accept this Amendment. The offence most rife in Ireland was that of attacking officers of the law. It was the intention of the Government to add to the sub-section words which the hon. and learned Member had pointed to as being absent—namely, "while in the execution of his duty." Now, the hon. and learned Member had based his case on the old story that a process-server should have a skull as hard as a stone, because they were more exposed to violent attacks than any other class. He was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway would agree with him in that matter. But the hon. and learned Member had forgotten that one of the most common offences which had existed from the earliest times was that of obstructing an officer of the law in the execution of his duty, and that the penalty attached to the offence was two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour. The Committee would see that the sub-section imposed a much more lenient penalty, and having regard to the necessity of protecting the officers of the law in the execution of their duty, he trusted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Wicklow would not be pressed.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, on the ground that the offences named in the sub-section were covered by the sub-section just passed by the Committee. That sub-section provided that any person should be brought within the scope of this Bill who "committed an aggravated act of violence against the person." No one would say that policemen, bailiffs, and process-servers were not "persons;"

    1031
    and, therefore, he contended that the Government had sufficient power under Sub-section (c) for their protection. Ho thought it most unreasonable that any constable, bailiff, or process-server should be specially protected by the Bill, and would ask whether the ordinary law was not sufficient to cover these assaults? If it were not, then he said they were fully covered by the extraordinary sub-section which the Committee had just passed. Were they to suppose that the persons this subsection was specially designed to protect were more precious than any other members of the community, or were ordinary mortals, so to speak, to be regarded as common clay, and policemen, bailiffs, and process-servers as blue china? For his own part, he was inclined to make a slight alteration in the lines of the English poet quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Wicklow, and to read them thus—
    "There's a divinity doth hedge a bailiff,
    Rough-use him how you will."
    He could see no reason whatever for including in the Bill this special provision for the protection of these classes of persons, who ought, like the rest of the community, to take their chance under the ordinary law. It was simply absurd to make punishable in this exaggerated manner the assaults committed on constables, say, at the arrest of a drunken man, or in case of their interference with a street band, or anything of that kind. It was well known that in Ireland the police were constantly and needlessly interfering in the most irritating way, at times and places whore their presence was not wanted at all. They were regarded in Ireland as an officious and meddling body of men; and it was notorious that their action in the case of quiet and peaceful assemblies was often the cause of riot and disturbance. It was only the other day that he asked a Question about the police having torn down a harmless and legal notice relating to the cutting of turf. That notice was torn down without the least justification; and, in reply to his Question whether there was any legal authority for the act, he was told there was not, and that the constable would be called to account. These were things of daily occurrence in Ireland; and he repeated that whenever the police inter-
    1032
    fered in their accustomed and irritating manner with little children, temperance bands, street quarrels, and such small matters, if the slightest assault were committed upon them the offender would now come within the scope of this Bill, and be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Ho was willing that these assaults should be dealt with, if necessary, under the preceding subsection; but he protested against this special dignity, protection, and sacred-ness being conferred by the Bill upon constables, bailiffs, and process-servers.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down wanted to know why police constables were to be treated as if they were blue china? He reminded him that, in the opinion of some persons, blue china was only valuable when it was cracked and broken, and that seemed to be the view of the hon. Member for West-meath.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would give their serious attention to this Amendment, for ho could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no Amendment had been before the Committee during the discussions on this clause which deserved more consideration. He would point out to the Committee that this clause was founded upon agrarian offences, upon the hostility which existed between landlords, tenants, and labourers in Ireland; but it should be borne in mind that constables there had other duties to perform than those connected with agrarian matters and the collection of rents. His hon. Friend had pointed out that the Bill would revolutionize the law of the country. If an assault were made on a policeman in Dublin, this sub-section would deprive the person who committed it of the ordinary right of being brought before a jury, and render him liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour on the decision of a magistrate— that was to say, the penalty for the offence would be very much increased. The Bill being based upon the prevalence of agrarian outrage, he was at a loss to see why ordinary assaults upon the police and other officers should come within the category of offences against the Act; and he would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he could not insert these words—

    1033
    "On every minister of the law, where such minister of the law is engaged in any legal service connected with the tenure of land."
    He asked the Government, by the adoption of these words, to make it plain that constables, except when engaged in such duties, were not more liable to assault than they were before the land agitation commenced. He claimed that this special jurisdiction should not apply, except where the officers of the law were engaged in legal service relating to the occupation of land. The hon. and learned Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) had said, with perfect truth, that the objections raised to Sub-section (c) applied with greater force in the present case. Let the Chief Secretary for Ireland pile heaps of Returns upon the Table of the House, and, whenever he possibly could, let him justify the Bill by referring to statistics; but he (Mr. Sexton) maintained that the offences which this subsection professed to guard against had entirely disappeared. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said they were now rife in Ireland; but was that statement confirmed by the Returns? In 1880 there were 49 cases of assault and 11 convictions; in 1881 there were 61 assaults and 27 convictions, a proportion which he claimed that Irish juries did not give in ordinary criminal cases. But how many assaults on the police had been committed in the present year—at a time when the Attorney General for Ireland described them as being rife? According to the Parliamentary Papers, extending up to the end of May—not one. Then, why was this sub-section brought into the Bill? He claimed that the juries in Ireland had convicted a larger proportion in the case of these offences than the juries in England, and he said that it was unreasonable on the part of Her Majesty's Government to blame the juries in Ireland for non-conviction, when, practically, there were no offences to convict for. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might be able to find a reply to this argument which would appear satisfactory to himself; but he (Mr. Sexton) was bound to say that the argument appeared perfectly unanswerable. What was the case, then, with regard to assaults on process-servers during the present year? Here, again, the Government Returns refuted their
    1034
    own case. There had been two assaults on bailiffs in January, two in February, three in March, one in April, and none at all in the month of May. Those figures spoke for themselves, and to add one word to such an argument would be absurd. He would conclude his remarks in support of the omission of this subsection by the assertion that its presence in the Bill was the very perfection of imbecility and wantonness.
    MR. LABOUCHEREpointed out that "assault" was a very general term. He believed it was held to be an assault for one person to lay his hand upon another, or to shake his fist in another person's face. He could very easily imagine a person, who was being evicted by some cruel or harsh landlord, shaking his fist in the face of the constable engaged in the execution of that order, without any intention to assault the individual; and, therefore, he thought some qualifying words should be introduced into the subsection. If words were introduced which indicated that serious harm or injury were necessary to bring a person within the scope of the clause, he thought that the sub-section would be far better than it was at present, for he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would agree with him that, if the words in the sub-section were administered in the fullest manner by the stipendiary magistrates and others, a person innocent of the intention of assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty might, for simply shaking his fist in his face, be sent to prison for six months.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo had stated that the only acts which this Bill was intended to deal with were acts of agrarian outrage. Now, that was not the case, and every Member in the House must know that the 1st clause in the Bill embodied very different catagories of crime. It was difficult to understand how the hon. Member opposite, with all his powers of fallacy, could argue as he had done. The hon. Member for Sligo asked why constables and process-servers did not come under the sub-section which was intended to protect ordinary persons from outrage? But there was a special reason for this. The persons in question were servants of the law, appointed for special duties, and that being so, they were entitled to special protection. That, he believed,

    1035
    was the whole argument in favour of the sub-section, and he recommended it to the consideration of the hon. Member opposite, who was always so ready to draw a coach and four through this Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member opposite that the position of Ireland was one which did not require a security of the kind provided in this sub-section. To limit its application to agrarian crime only would be on the part of the Government to show that they had entirely failed to understand what the condition of Ireland was. It was true that agrarian crime was to be regarded as a thing by itself; but the fact was that this agrarian agitation created in Ireland a disregard of all law; and if there were one thing more than another which it was the duty of those who brought in the Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland to introduce, it was a provision which should give security to those officers who carried out the determination of the law. The hon. Member had stated that when the 1st clause was under discussion, he (Sir William Harcourt) had declined to argue the question raised upon figures and statistics. He was bound to say that he did not feel it his duty to resort to an argument of that kind in the present instance. But the hon. Member for Sligo himself had supplied a good reason why this sub-section should not be omitted from the Bill, because if the hon. Member was satisfied that these offences would never occur, he might console himself with the knowledge that this clause would never come into operation. With regard to the term "assault," the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated with truth that it was a wide one; but it was also true that in their endeavours to meet cases of this kind the Government were obliged to use general words. Under the existing law it was provided that where people assaulted or wilfully obstructed any officer in the due execution of his duty, or any person acting in aid of such officer, they should be punishable with two years' imprisonment. That was the law of England, and the wording he had given was just as wide as that to which the hon. Member for Northampton had objected. There was no summary jurisdiction under the Act referred to; it was provided that assaults
    1036
    should be tried by indictment and punishable at the Assizes; but it was afterwards thought necessary to provide for summary jurisdiction as well, and in 25 & 26 Vict. it was enacted that assaults of the kind specified be punishable by summary jurisdiction as well as by indictment. That statement, ho thought, would meet the objection of the hon. Member for Northampton. Referring to the observation of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan), it appeared to him that if there was one thing more than another which deserved to be treated with the care usually bestowed upon blue china, it was an officer or process-server in the execution of his duty in Ireland; and he thought the Government would not be discharging its duty if they did not do everything in their power to protect those officers against the special dangers to which they were exposed.
    MR. MACARTNEYsuggested that the provision of the sub-section should be extended to Sheriff's officers in Ireland, because these were just as liable to assault as the other classes referred to. A case had occurred in the county of Tyrone in which the Sheriff's officer engaged in seizing the goods of a farmer for a debt due to a shopkeeper in Cookstown was shot dead. The man who committed the murder was brought before a Tyrone jury and convicted; but, owing to his great age, he was sentenced, he believed, to the mitigated penalty of two years' penal servitude. That, he contended, showed the necessity of extending the clause in the direction indicated.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to point out what he believed to be a sufficient reason why this Amendment should not be agreed to. It was clear, since the Prime Minister had stated that a person of legal knowledge was to be associated with the Court to be constituted under this Bill, that they would have in Ireland the best Summary Jurisdiction Court that had ever existed there. The objection that had been urged, over and over again, to dealing with this question by means of summary jurisdiction was the want of confidence in the magistrates on the part of the people of Ireland. There had always been in Ireland a want of magistrates who knew the law; but the Prime Minister now told them that this want was

    1037
    to be supplied, and, on such terms as that, he considered the jurisdiction of the Petty Courts should be enlarged as much as possible. The penalties inflicted by these Courts would be much smaller than those that would be imposed by Courts of Quarter Session or at the Assizes. Again, it was most desirable that in the country districts the police should have complete immunity from assaults when engaged in the discharge of their duty. In his own county (Galway) there was a district of 70 square miles, in which formerly only five policemen were stationed, and in that vast area it must be remembered that these men were the representatives of the majesty of the law. But what had occurred since? In consequence of the number of assaults on constables having largely increased, a considerable addition had been made to the number of police in that district, for which the poor people had been compelled to pay, and it was thus another argument in favour of protecting the police from assaults that under this very Act the people in disturbed districts would have to pay for the additional police forces which the Lord Lieutenant might think it necessary to send there. Anyone would suppose, who listened to the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite to this sub-section, that a penalty of six months' imprisonment with hard labour would always be inflicted by the magistrates for an assault upon the police and the other officers named. But that was not the case; the penalties inflicted might be very light. They might not amount to more than one or two clays' imprisonment, or the charge might end in an acquittal. But the point upon which he relied most strongly in defending the sub-section was, that these offences would be dealt with speedily. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in stating that the number of assaults upon process-servers had greatly decreased, had forgotten to tell the Committee what he very well knew, that the assaults had been so numerous and terrible that the Judges had been obliged to alter their rules with regard to personally serving writs by making them to be served by post. Nothing could be more desirable than that the protection accorded to single policemen and process-servers pursuing their duties in various parts of Ireland should be as complete as possible. The hon. Member for Sligo spoke of these assaults as being entirely
    1038
    of an agrarian character. But that was not so. Some of the worst assaults which had been committed upon bailiffs had been when they were serving processes for debts due to shopkeepers. The reason why so few assaults upon this class were recorded was simply because process-servers dared not execute their duty in serving processes. In view of the promise of the Prime Minister that the Court should be assisted by men of legal knowledge, he felt it his duty to vote for the sub-section.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion before the Committee, and if the Government would consent to the introduction of the words, "while engaged in the discharge of his duty," ho was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government proposed to add these words to the sub-section, "while in the execution of his duty or in consequence thereof."
    MR. M'COANsaid, the proposed wording was hardly clear enough. The object was to confine the sub-section to cases of assault while the officer was engaged in the execution of his duty.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)pointed out that it was equally necessary to protect an officer from the consequences of having performed his duty.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would adhere to the words he had proposed. It was not enough to say that a public officer should be protected while actually upon his duty; to say that would amount simply to the announcement that the moment an officer took his badge off his arm and assumed temporarily the position of a private individual he would be at the mercy of anyone who chose to attack him. The Government should take care to protect officers when off duty from the attacks of persons who cherished a grudge against them for duties which they had performed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that when the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was testing the necessity for this sub-section by reference to statistics, and when he proposed to show that there had been no assaults on the police and very few assaults on bailiffs and process-servers, he

    1039
    (Mr. O'Donnell) felt instinctively that the hon. Member for Sligo was labouring under the impression that this Bill had reference to the state of Ireland. The Bill had reference to the state of England. It was not with a view to the repression of Irish crime that it was introduced, but with a view to cultivate English opinion for Party purposes; and his view of the matter was corroborated by the Home Secretary, who had frequently stated that he declined altogether to test the necessity of this Bill by anything like figures or statistics. For having made that statement, Irish Members could not but feel that they were, as usual, largely indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his headlong frankness. The hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) appeared to think that persons accused of these assaults would like to be relieved of the necessity of attending the Assizes, and of having their cases decided by a jury. For his own part, he was of a contrary opinion; and he thought that an accused person in Ireland, just as in England, would rather proceed 500 miles in order to get a fair trial than go to a place five miles distant where he would be tried unfairly. The hon. Member for Galway had, he thought, misrepresented the feelings of the Irish people in saying that they would be in favour of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction when assisted by gentlemen acquainted with the law. He could assure him that a person who merely knew the law was by no means sufficient for this purpose. It was necessary that he should be disposed to carry out the law justly; and it did not at all follow, from the description of the hon. Member, that this result would be obtained. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the fact that a long time ago constables in Ireland were quite free from assault; but he must have forgotten that at that time the constables were not engaged in the work of the "Crowbar Brigade." The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary stated, a few moments ago, that the agrarian agitation in Ireland had a great contempt for all law. He presumed the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to give a specimen of the kind of statements on which the Bill relied. Let them compare that statement of the Home Secretary with the statement of the Catholic Arch-
    1040
    bishops assembled in conference only a couple of days ago. Cardinal M'Cabe presided at the Conference, and the Bishops declared unanimously that the contempt for law in Ireland was the result of unjust eviction, and not of the agrarian agitation. The argument of the Home Secretary, subject as it was to a refutation so strong, was hardly likely to strengthen the position of the Government; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) presumed the position of the Government did not require to be strengthened by argument so long as they secured the requisite number of votes to carry their point. There was one matter in reference to this sub-section which deserved consideration. In the preceding sub-section it was laid down that a man must commit a dangerous assault upon an ordinary person in order to make the offender liable to the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates; but under this sub-section any sort of assault upon a constable, or a bailiff or process-server, or other minister of the law, was liable to be punished just in the same way as a dangerous assault upon a common man or ordinary civilian. The first objection he had to bring against such a provision was that it was calculated to encourage an aggressive and provocative attitude, not merely on the part of constables, but on the part of the ordinary bailiffs and process-servers, and the understrappers of the evictor. Bailiffs, as a body, were not men of any particular respectability. If a bailiff knew that it was only when he was dangerously assaulted that all these powers could be put in operation, he, of course, would know that similar knowledge on the part of the people would deter the people from dangerously assaulting him. If the follow knew that any kind of a shove or push would make a person equally liable to the summary jurisdiction of the Court, he would assume a bullying and provocative attitude. Bullying and provocative attitude on the part of bailiffs was not confined to Ireland. He would remind the Committee of what occurred in London only a day or two ago. He had seen in the papers the report of a case in which some bailiffs, in the employ of a certain Midland Furnishing Company, upon a paltry excuse, broke into a house and, not satisfied with escaping punishment, they proceeded to violently assault a woman they found in the house. The woman was kicked and beaten all over

    1041
    the body; and these bailiffs, when they were brought before English magistrates, were let off with a fine of £5, although they had, in the discharge of their duty, kicked a woman black and blue from head to foot. While in England bailiffs who kicked a woman black and blue were let off for £5, in Ireland any ordinary person who gave a bailiff a mere shove—simply a technical assault —was liable, under the summary jurisdiction of this clause, to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. That was grossly unfair, and calculated to develop the worst qualities of a rather bad class of men—the ordinary bailiffs. There was another point of view from which this sub-section ought to be regarded. Ordinary assaults upon bailiffs were liable to be punished by six months' imprisonment on summary trial before one of these magistrates, and dangerous assaults upon ordinary persons could only be punished by six months' imprisonment with hard labour on trial before the same magistrates. Look what a terrible premium was placed upon the commission of dangerous assaults upon bailiffs. He would put it respectfully to the Government, when they made an ordinary assault upon a bailiff punishable by the same term of imprisonment with which a dangerous assault would be visited, did they not at once make it worth the while of the assaulter to give the bailiff a thoroughly dangerous mauling while he was about it? Merely shove a bailiff, merely use gentle pressure towards a bailiff, a man would be liable to six months' imprisonment when brought up before these summary magistrates. Give a bailiff a regular mauling, beat him, kick him black and blue, very dangerously assault him, and the man would only be liable to six months' imprisonment when brought before the same summary magistrates. He could assure the Government that by showing their regard for a bailiff, by providing the same punishment for dangerous assaults as for ordinary assaults, they made it worth the while of the offender to endeavour to get the value for the penalty out of the bones of the bailiff. Apart from all other considerations, this sub-section was calculated to stimulate the commission of dangerous assaults upon bailiffs and process-servers.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he only rose to offer a few words which,
    1042
    he thought, might remove some of the difficulties which had been raised by hon. Members to this clause. It was the desire of the Irish Government and of Lord Spencer not to use these extraordinary powers except in cases where the Lord Lieutenant considered their exercise was absolutely required. It would be observed that several clauses of the Bill referred to proclaimed districts, and the Irish Government were of opinion that that limitation of proclaimed districts might be extended to other clauses of the Bill. The Government were perfectly willing to agree that this clause should only operate within a proclaimed district—that was, a district which was in such a state of disturbance as would justify and require the use of these summary powers. A sort of premium would thus be placed upon a district to keep undisturbed and quiet, and he hoped that the announcement he had now made would tend to facilitate the passing of the clause. Effect could either be given to the concession at the end of the clause, or, perhaps, better still, on Report. In the meantime, he would ask hon. Members to consider that the clause should only apply to proclaimed districts.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that what the Home Secretary had announced was in the direction of a limitation of the stringency of the clause, and the Irish Members welcomed any limitation of that kind. Just one word with reference to the question of statistics which had been so much talked about. He had been struck by the different degrees of value that the Government gave to statistics according to the quarter from which they came and the cause for which they were employed. They had all seen that whenever the Government chose to quote statistics—and they did so as often as they possibly could—the figures were regarded as demonstrations; they were treated as if they carried immense weight and were sufficient to settle the whole question in dispute. Let the Irish Members quote statistics in favour of their arguments and the Home Secretary put the figures off with a wave of his royal hand. Now, in matters of this kind, it was not fair to use two weights and two measures. Such a proceeding had been denounced by very high authority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney

    1043
    General for Ireland had informed the Committee that the Government would add to this clause the words, "while in the execution of his duty." Such words would decidedly go to improve—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that- that proposition will be discussed presently. There are three Amendments to be considered before the proposal to insert these words can be entertained.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was tempted to refer to the words by the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself had done so. He would, however, defer any remarks he had to make on the point until the proposal was formally made. He would now only offer a few observations in reference to a remark that fell from the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the clause would be harmless if the offences to which it related were not committed. He had heard statements of that sort before, and, as he said upon a former occasion, they were very easily answered. Would not the same argument go to show that this Act ought to be applied to England? The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) said, a couple of nights ago, that this Act would not affect anyone who chose to observe the Ten Commandments. If that was so, why not introduce a like Bill for England? The Ten Commandments fared about as badly in England as in any other part of the world. He did not think it was fair to lay such arguments before the Committee; and he would ask those who used them to answer him, if they could, when he said that such arguments were just as good, just as cogent for the introduction of this measure, or a similar measure, into England as into Ireland. The time of the Committee ought not to be occupied with such nonsensical arguments, and therefore it was that he rose to protest against their repetition.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he would add very little to what had already been said during the debate as to the present state of Ireland, and the necessity that existed for some sort of provision for the protection of the Constabulary and other officers of the law. One fact had been made abundantly clear, and that was that the public of this country were of opinion that the whole process of the law in Ireland, administered by the Con-
    1044
    stabulary and other servants of the law, had been brought into disrepute and into contempt; and if at the present moment there was, as pointed out by one hon. Member, some sort of decline in the amount of crime, he would make this observation —that there was scarcely any part of Ireland, save, perhaps, in the North, where it was not over and over again found necessary, by persons who desired to have the process of law enforced, to apply to those exceptional Associations —the Property Defence Association and the Emergency Association—for persons to do the business which they could not get the ordinary officers of the law to do. He understood the object of this temporary Act was to bring the country into that normal condition in which the ordinary processes of the law would be effected in the ordinary way, and there would be no longer any necessity for exceptional associations. He would just say a word in reference to the announcement made by the Home Secretary that the Government would be willing that this clause should only apply in proclaimed districts. He quite saw the force of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said as to the premium that would be held out to a district to keep quiet. Of course, if the Irish Executive took that view, they must do it upon their own responsibility. He would point out to the Government that all the offences included in this section were crimes of a sudden character; they were such offences as taking part in riots, attacks upon houses, aggravated assaults on constables, bailiffs, and others. These crimes were pretty sure to occur—he was afraid they would be more likely to occur—in those districts where this temporary Act did not apply, so that it might become necessary to proclaim a greater number of districts for the application of these exceptional powers than would have been the case had the Government not made the concession just announced. He simply ventured to submit this view of the matter to the Government; but as to the other part of the case—the necessity of these clauses for the protection of the officers of the law and Constabulary, who had been so shamefully used, but who had behaved so admirably during these disturbed times—no one who knew Ireland at all could seriously contend that these clauses were not necessary.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to say one word in order that there should he no misapprehension. The Irish Government were very anxious not to assume these exceptional powers in cases where they did not deem their assumption necessary. These offences might occur anywhere—they might occur in the best ordered districts; but the Irish Government did not wish to assume special jurisdiction where they considered the ordinary jurisdiction would be sufficient to cope with and punish the offences. That was the view in respect of which the Executive Government desired to apply the limitation of proclaimed districts.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 282; Noes 31: Majority 251.—(Div. List, No. 133.)
    MR. MOLLOYmoved, in page 3, line 38, after "an," insert "aggravated." The Amendment was intended to provide that the assault on a constable, bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law must be an aggravated one if the penalty provided by the Bill was imposed. He presumed the Government would have no objection to such a reasonable Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "an," to insert the word "aggravated."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'aggravated' be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the acceptance of the Amendment would be equivalent to leaving out the section.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, his object was to guard against technical assaults upon constables and others being made excuses for bringing men before the magistrates and obtaining their imprisonment for six months with hard labour. Unless an Amendment of this kind were adopted, it would be in the power of an ill-tempered policeman to proceed against a man who only sneered at him or smiled crookedly at him. Only the other day a photographer was had up because he spoke rudely to a policeman and advised the officer not to go too near the apparatus lest it might contain dynamite. Such cases as these he wished to guard against, though he was not wedded to the form of the Amend-
    1046
    ment. If the Home Secretary could suggest any other means of covering the point, he should be glad to withdraw his own Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the objection of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Molloy) would apply equally to the English Act dealing with offences against the person. The words in the English Act were "any person who assaults a constable," and for such assault the offender was liable to imprisonment for 12 months. What was proposed in this Bill was that a man who assaulted a constable in the execution of his duty should, on summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment for six months.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the case to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Molloy) had referred occurred in Dundalk. It was a case in which a photographer declined to recognize a policeman, and who advised the constable not to go too near the photographic apparatus for fear it might contain some explosive material. The policeman made no complaint until 12 days afterwards. The photographer was arrested summarily, and brought before the Bench then sitting. Fortunately there were two paid magistrates present, and after hearing the case, took a very different view of it to the Resident Magistrate. The Resident Magistrate — one of a class who, it must be remembered, were to administer this Act—with a view, he (Mr. Callan) supposed, to uphold the law, said—
    "I differ from my brother magistrates. I am overruled by them, or I would send you to gaol without the option of bail. You have committed a grievous offence. When the policeman spoke to you, why did you not reply civilly to him?"
    Such was the spirit in which a Resident Magistrate, a brother of a notorious Judge, treated the photographer; and such was the spirit in which Resident Magistrates would treat all similar cases when they were brought before them under this Act. It was absolutely necessary that words, limiting or explaining what an assault upon a constable was to consist of, should be inserted in the clause. Unless some such word as "aggravated" were inserted, persons who treated a constable uncivilly or rudely would be simply placed at the mercy of the Resident Magistrates, whose previous arbitrary conduct prompted the

    1047
    Irish Representatives to show so much hostility to the summary powers of the Act.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not conceal from himself the fact that the Government were now introducing a law which might possibly become one of great injustice without having any corresponding advantage. He agreed with the Home Secretary that there should be a very stringent law in regard to assaults upon policemen; but he could not agree that mere technical assaults should be dealt with in a Bill of this sort. Punishment ought to be provided for bond fide and substantial offences; but no notice ought to be taken of offences which were only of a nominal character. He could not understand on what ground the Government could insist upon a provision of this kind to meet such a case as that cited by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Molloy) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan). If the Government did not assent to the Amendment, it would only be another piece of evidence of their unreasonableness.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTONmoved, in page 3, line 38, to omit the word "constable." The Bill had been introduced, it was alleged, as a result of the agrarian condition of Ireland. An hon. Member sitting behind the Treasury Bench, however, had said that the general condition of Ireland, apart from agrarian, required coercion, and the Home Secretary grasped at the attenuated straw. If there be other facts connected with Ireland requiring a Bill like this, why did the Government only present a Return dealing with ordinary crimes? Let them show there was anything in the ordinary crimes of the country requiring coercion, and he would withdraw his opposition to the clause. He meant to adduce figures to show that the general condition of Ireland did not necessitate such a Bill, and did not require that constables should be specially protected by this clause. It was a notorious fact that in many cases when constables had been tolled off on agrarian duty they had been blind drunk; it was well-known that during the recent disturbances in Dublin the police had committed assaults on the people when in a state of beastly intoxication—
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Committee would recollect that at 10 minutes to 7 o'clock ho had not concluded his remarks in moving to omit the word "constable" from Sub-section [d) of the 5th clause. He had no objection to the presence of the words "bailiff, process-server, or other minister of the law," because those words had some relation to that peculiar phase of the condition of Ireland which was alleged to demand coercion. If the word "constable" was allowed to remain in the clause, the principles of the Bill would be extended to the whole life of the country, and to every possible contingency in which a policeman came into hostile contact with the people. It would be an outrage to apply to every possible hostile occurrence that might arise between policemen and civilians a stringent measure of this kind, giving, as it did, to a scratch tribunal the powers of long imprisonment with hard labour. Outside the agrarian question, there was no case whatever for the application of coercion. He had previously shown that even with regard to the agrarian question there was no case made out for its application, and he had brought forward what he considered most conclusive arguments — namely, the figures contained in the Government Return on the subject. It would be very amusing, if the subject were not so serious and painful to the persons he represented, were he to describe the manner in which statistics were regarded by the House. He always thought that statistics—official figures— presented facts in the most condensed and most authentic form; and last year, when the Coercion Bill was before the House, the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) was constantly supplying arithmetical tables of crime, and when the right hon. Gentleman showed there was a continual increase of offences, and put the fact forward as a powerful argument in favour of coercion, he was cheered to the echo by hon. Gentlemen

    1049
    behind him. When the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant addressed the House for the first time in his capacity of Chief Secretary, his speech was replete with tables of crime, and their reading was received with considerable applause. He (Mr. Sexton) did not forget that last year the Prime Minister delivered what the House considered a sledge-hammer speech, based on a Return of the number of Land League meetings held in a given time, and the number of agrarian crimes. An arithmetical relation was established between the number of meetings and the number of crimes, and he well remembered with what defiant salvoes of cheering this arithmetical relation was received by the House. The right hon. Gentleman said—"These are the figures; the steps of the Land League are dogged by the steps of crime." If he took up the Government's own Return, and pointed out that assaults on process-servers were conspicuous by their absence, he was met by the reply—"Oh, this is not a question of statistics." The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), whose zeal in support of this coercive Government often overran his discretion, told the Committee that assaults on process-servers had decreased because of the rearrangement of procedure made by the Judges. He (Mr. Sexton) supposed the Judges acted on their wisdom, and if they had found their alteration of their rules sufficient for the prevention of these assaults, why resort now to coercion? If the present rules of procedure were sufficient to prevent crime, why suspend the ordinary law and resort to coercion? A still more extraordinary argument was used by the Chief Secretary. "Oh, yes," said he, "perhaps there may be no assaults on process-servers; but there may be some hereafter." Was there ever such an argument for a Coercion Bill? If the liberties of the people were to be taken away because the Home Secretary thought there might be assaults on process-servers at some future time, the House of Commons had better give up all pretence of being a deliberative Assembly. Argument ceased when such a point as that was reached, and when he must assent to the liberties of the Irish people being taken away because the people might hereafter indulge in crime from which they are now free. The right
    1050
    hon. Gentleman said, if there were no agrarian offences now, there were ordinary offences. He altogether denied it. The ordinary crime presented a more conclusive case against coercion than the agrarian crime. He maintained that of the total number of apprehensions the convictions by juries, whether for ordinary or agrarian offences of the class included in this clause, would bear a fair comparison with the convictions of English juries in any cases whatever. If the Government considered that ordinary offences in Ireland were sufficient to demand coercion, why had they never laid on the Table any Return on the subject? The Government were in this dilemma—If ordinary offences were a reason for coercion, they had kept Parliament in ignorance, and they had been guilty of grave neglect of duty in not presenting Returns for the information of Parliament. There was a special reason why the word "constable" should be omitted. The police in Ireland had had from the beginning of this emergency very fatiguing and troublesome duties to perform. They had been required to turn out in all sorts of weather; they had had to travel long distances on foot, and they had been allowed 2.s. 6d. a-day for refreshment. On many occasions, before going on duty, they had been liberally primed with liquor, and while under its influence had committed excesses of which the country were only too painfully aware. What did Dublin Castle do with the policemen before sending them out during the excited times of last autumn? They primed them liberally with liquor in order the more effectually to do their work. He had gained his information from a constable who took part in the exploit, but who had since left the Force. When many of the policemen were in a state of extreme intoxication, it was no wonder that on the night of the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) they beat men, women, and even children, quite regardless of the consequences. The Committee, no doubt, would remember the case of Ellen M'Dermott, who was stabbed dead by the police in county Mayo. There was a public inquiry into the matter, and it was found that after having stabbed the unfortunate girl the police went to the house. There was the girl's mother, with the dead body

    1051
    on one side of her and an epileptic son raving on the other, and the policeman who had stabbed the girl served the mother with a summons for 7s. 6d. for poor's rate. It was well known that when services of this kind had to be performed by the police, and when the police had to go long distances, they were well supplied beforehand with what was euphemistically called "refreshment." He was entitled to say that if the police, when in an inebriated state, were brought into contact with the people at times when the popular mind was very much perturbed, the probability was that the kind of assaults referred to in this sub-section would be very often provoked by the police themselves. He was entitled to say that oftentimes the police would so conduct themselves as to compel civilians to be guilty of an assault in self-defence. In view of such facts, and under such circumstances, it was very necessary that the accused should have the protection of a jury. The Resident Magistrate was inseparable from the police. He conducted police investigations; he was prejudiced towards the police; and, therefore, to commit the people to the care of such men was simply to condemn and foredoom them. This was his case in favour of the omission of the word "constable."
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out the word "constable."— (Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'constable' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that unless some answer were given to the speech of his hon. Friend he should move that the Chairman do now report Progress. He submitted that his hon. Friend was entitled to a statement from the Treasury Bench.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not answer the hon. Member, be-cause he thought that the speech, and especially the closing words of the speech to which the Committee had just listened, was the strongest argument that could be advanced in favour of the clause. It was because men in the position of the hon. Member were constantly holding up the police in Ireland to the hatred and contempt of the people that this clause was necessary. It was be-cause men in the position of the hon.
    1052
    Member were inciting the people of Ireland to resist the police, and to hold sentiments towards the police such as the hon. Gentleman had expressed, that in his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion the police of Ireland required protection. Speeches like that to which they had just listened made it highly improbable that juries in Ireland would do their duty. How was it likely that people who had sentiments addressed to them like those they had just heard would feel otherwise than disposed on all occasions to find verdicts against the police? That, indeed, was the purpose for which such language was held, and he regarded speeches like that of the hon. Member as the very best arguments in favour of the clause as it stood.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the two hours' repose had not done the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home (Secretary much good. Instead of the right hon. and learned Gentleman having availed himself of the two hours to clear his mind from the conflict of debate, he came down to the House and, without answering one single tittle of argument advanced by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he delivered by insinuation charges of the most atrocious character. ["Order!"] Gentlemen who cried "Order" appeared to think that the Home Secretary was to have the monopoly of abuse in the House. The Home Secretary insinuated that the hon. Member for Sligo, by his speeches, had incited the people to commit crime; but what answer did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) showed that, in spite of these alleged incitements to crime, there was not in the months of January, February, March, April, or May, a single assault upon a policeman in Ireland? That argument was unanswerable; and the Government had not pretended to answer it. Hon. Gentlemen had heard of a column erected before a certain bridge in this city, which column had been described by Pope as a column which,
    "Like a tall bully, lifts its head and lies."
    When he heard arguments addressed to the Committee by the Home Secretary which were no arguments at all, but which simply consisted of an attempt to put down, by defamation, arguments of the most trenchant character, he could not help at times recalling the words of

    1053
    the poet. This was the spirit in which the Irish Members were being dealt with by the Home Secretary; but he could tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the challenge which he had thrown down would be taken up by the Irish people, and would be answered in a spirit which his Government and this House would yet learn to regret.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not disposed to contribute to the discussion any observations of the elevated character of those to which the Committee had listened for the last two or three minutes. He proposed to approach the discussion, if he could, from a humbler and more prosaic point of view. He did not wish to criticize, in an offensive way, the speech of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), to whose speeches he sometimes listened with admiration, although he could not say that he agreed with many of his propositions, and he could not pretend to say he agreed for a moment with his standpoint. Anyone who had listened, even in the most friendly critical spirit, to the hon. Gentleman's speech of this evening, must arrive at the conclusion that it was no eulogy of the police. That was a fair and moderate way of putting it. One could not find in the speech language of unmeasured praise of the Irish police, and it appeared to him that if such a speech were delivered before an appreciative and intelligent and rather excited audience like those which they were in the habit of meeting with in the land of the brilliant race, it might be possible that it would lead to some misconception as to the point of view from which the Constabulary were to be regarded. He was disposed to think that, looking at the question fairly and temperately, and from a common-sense point of view, the Constabulary were entitled to a reasonable amount of protection at the present time. He was disposed to think they were subjected just now to rather more than a reasonable amount of unkind criticism—he liked to put everything in a moderate way. Unquestionably, the discharge of their duty did not render the police liable to be inebriated by undue popularity—that was another consideration he was entitled to present to the Committee—and the discharge of their duties had, on more occasions than one, in fact very frequently, subjected them to very great danger, and occa-
    1054
    sionally to very substantial outrage. He did not believe any man should profess any very great standard of courage unless he was likely to be called upon to put it to proof. Of course, in that case a man was entitled to be as courageous as he pleased; but he (Mr. Gibson) was disposed to think there were very few sitting in the House who would care to be discharging the duties of the police in the disturbed districts of Ireland if, being in that position, they did not feel they were protected by firm laws, formed with a view to the special exigencies of their existing life. He put it to the Committee, making allowance for every conceivable standpoint, did not every rational man feel that the Constabulary in Ireland who, at this critical time, were discharging unpopular, disagreeable, and trying duties, were entitled to every possible protection? Surely, if the Irish Members below the Gangway were willing to protect "bailiffs, process-servers, and other ministers of the law," they would be prepared to go a step further and say they would give equal protection, at all events, to the men of their own country who were discharging the difficult duty of preserving the peace. He had no desire to run away from the question, and he could not imagine any solitary reason there could be suggested why the Constabulary should not be given the protection of this clause. It was generally admitted that the Bill was necessary. ["No !"] Well, they were now in Committee, and they were bound to view the Bill from that standpoint— they were discussing the clauses on the basis that Parliament was satisfied that some such Bill was necessary. If Parliament was satisfied that it was desirable to increase the power of summary jurisdiction, in the name of common sense how could it he argued that the ministers of the law who were most mixed up in the administration of the law should be excluded from the protection intended to be given by this clause? Ho did not dispute that, from the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Sexton's) point of view, it might be reasonable to put forward this Amendment; but surely the matter had now been fully discussed. He (Mr. Gibson) claimed to have a mind tolerably open to conviction; but he must say he was unable to see a single ground which could be fairly suggested

    1055
    for the acceptance of this Amendment.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the Home Secretary had stated that one of the causes of the unpopularity of the police in Ireland was to be found in speeches such as that which had been made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He (Mr. Sullivan) entirety differed from the right lion, and learned Gentleman on this point. The cause of the unpopularity of the police in Ireland was the power and privilege which had been given to them by the English Government to tyrannize and dominate over, and to harass the Irish people. That was the real cause of their unpopularity; the police were petted and pampered, enabled, and even induced, to meddle with, annoy, and irritate the people. This Bill, when it became law, would make the Irish police still more unpopular than they had ever been before. It would elevate them— they were high enough now in power and privilege — but, when this Act passed, every policeman in the country —every policeman in every village and town in the whole Island—would be monarch of all he surveyed. There was not a young man in the whole country who could venture to hold up his head beneath the frown of the Irish policeman. He had said they were a pampered and a petted class; and, as he and his Friends had pointed out over and over again to the Committee, they were not really policemen, they were soldiers —they were warriors, and they conducted themselves as such; they were not detectives of crime, but lords over the people. The Irish Constabulary would, in his opinion, be an admirable force to send out at the present moment to Egypt, or to any other country where England wished to assert her supremacy—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not the merits or the demerits of the Irish Con-stabulary that is under discussion, but simply whether the word "constable" should be omitted from the clause.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Precisely; and it was proposed to leave out the word "constable" because of the special character of the Irish Constabulary —because of their conduct, and because of the relations in which they stood towards the Irish people. He would not
    1056
    dispute the Chairman's ruling; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that his remarks were pertinent to the subject under discussion. He contended that the Irish police were such a body of men as would make an admirable force to send out to Egypt, or any other part of the world where England had military service to be performed; but for the purposes for which police were required they were not only an inefficient organization in Ireland, as could be proved out of the mouth of the Government themselves—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have explained to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee has no reference whatever to the merits or demerits of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The question is simply whether the police shall be protected from assault under this clause.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he quite agreed that the police should be protected from assault; but he would point out that they had protection from assault already under the ordinary law. That was quite sufficient; and to give them this additional and extra dignity, weight, importance, and protection would not answer any useful purpose in the country, but would have a contrary effect. As he had said, it would add to the un-popularity of the Force, and make the constables more and more distasteful and disagreeable to the people amongst whom they had to act; it would make them hold their heads higher, if that were possible, and make them more and more interfere and meddle with the people, and induce them to put the people to all kinds of inconvenience and trouble.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he certainly had expected that the Government would have made some attempt or other to justify the powers they sought to obtain under this provision of the clause. The Government were asking protection for the Irish police which they did not claim for policemen in the worst slums in London—in the worst slums of a city —from the river running through which, in the course of the last five years, no less than 599 dead bodies had been taken. There had been that largo number of dead bodies taken from the Thames; but there had probably been double that number of undetected murders committed within that period, and

    1057
    yet the Government did not claim, on behalf of the Metropolitan police, the power which they claimed for the Irish stipendiary magistrates in regard to the infliction of sentences on persons who assaulted the police in Ireland. Such was the extraordinarily sanguine character of the Government that they expected everything they said—or they thought, for as yet they had said nothing upon this matter, except through the mouthpiece of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and his few remarks were certainly not in the slightest degree pertinent to the arguments of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton)—but such was the wonderful constitution of this wonderful Ministry that they expected the Committee would give them a clause of this character without the slightest attempt having been made to present a case for its insertion in the Bill. Why, he asked, was it brought in for the protection of the police? Had the police been assaulted in Ireland? ["Yes."] Well, they had 12,000 constables in Ireland; and if hon. Members would look at the statistics of assaults on the police in England, and assaults on the police in Ireland, they would find that the number of cases in England was 10 times greater than the number in Ireland—he did not think he should be over the mark in saying 20 times greater. It had been shown there had been, comparatively speaking, no assaults on the police in Ireland. It had been shown that, owing to their organization and constitution, and the other steps taken by the Government in regard to them, they were not brought into contact or collision with the people; that, as a rule, the people did not assault the police; and that, of all the provisions in this Bill—of all the exclusively severe provisions in this Bill calculated to make the people of Ireland hate the English Government for all eternity, and to keep the gap between the two nations wide open—there was none more severe and detestable than this they were now discussing. Because the police had not been assaulted in Ireland, because no case had been made out—as no case could be made out—they (the Government) asked from this obedient and subservient House these extraordinary and oppressive powers. He submitted that they could not discuss this Amendment satisfactorily without considering
    1058
    the acts and the constitution of the Constabulary Force in Ireland. He had listened very carefully to the Chairman's ruling a while ago with regard to what was falling from the hon. Member for the County of Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan), and he felt it necessary to point out to the Chairman that one of their chief reasons for objecting to this power being conferred on the stipendiary magistrates under this Bill was that the Government, on their side, had not shown that the people had behaved themselves against the police, in the matter of assaults, in such a manner as to render the power necessary. On the contrary, the Irish Members believed that the Government had failed in their contention; and they maintained that they could prove, by the constitution of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, by the character of the Force, and by its action, that it was not entitled to the excessive protection that it was sought to give it under this sub-section. The Irish Constabulary had not shown themselves so judicious in their use of the very large powers and the protection already given them by the law of the land as to entitle them to, or to entitle the Government to, ask for them further protection. During the last six months, if anybody ventured to open his mouth in Ireland, and speak in a sense adverse to the existing Government, he did it at the risk of being picked up two minutes afterwards with about a ton of buckshot in him. If anybody whispered any notion or thought that was apparently intended to make out that anything the late Chief Secretary had done was not perfection and most righteous, he ran the risk of finding, if there was a constable near him, the bayonet of that constable in his body before the breath was out of his lips. He (Mr. Parnell) did not draw an exaggerated picture of the action of the police during the last six months in Ireland, or the way in which they had been encouraged to act by the Government; and although he believed that a change had come over the state of affairs in that country and the spirit of the Government, and that the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant did not encourage the police to butcher unoffending women and children in broad daylight in the public streets of the Irish towns, yet—
    MR. GOSCHENrose to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must have heard my ruling—that this is not the time to discuss the services of the Force as a body; it is for the Committee to confine itself simply to the question as to whether special protection should be given to the police or not.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, his argument was simply this—that the continued action of the police in Ireland, and the continued action of the Government, did not make out a case for giving these further powers. If that were not a legitimate argument, he did not know what was. He would not venture for a single moment to dispute the ruling of the Chair; and if the Chairman said he might not point to what had happened in Ireland—to the abuse of power by the authorities and the police in Ireland during the last six months—to show that the Government could not be trusted with further powers, of course he should not press the matter further. He thought, however, he was entitled to use this argument, or that he had legitimate grounds for complaining that part of the rights of the Irish Members had been taken away from them on the present occasion. He would fall back on his original contention, and call on the Government—and he thought they were entitled to call upon it—to make out their case. Why did they want this excessive power? Why did they want this power of sending everybody who looked cross at a policeman to gaol for six months with hard labour? That was practically the effect of this sub-section. Hon. Members knew very well how the Constabulary provoked the people. The police went in the public-houses and acted in a rough way to the people; but if the slightest retaliation was attempted—the retaliation that any man under the circumstances would be betrayed into—it would be construed into an offence under this clause and this Bill, and the man offending would be liable to the penalty of six months' imprisonment. There was not a single particle of foundation for the contention put forward by the Government with regard to this sub-section. They were not entitled, either in consideration of the number or the character of the assaults on the police, to claim this power, than which there had been no instance of so excessive and severe a power being asked
    1060
    for during the 80 years which had elapsed since the Union.
    MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN rose.
    MR T. D. SULLIVAN: I wish to speak on the point of Order—
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Trevolyan.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the case before the Committee at the present moment was one of the very simplest kind. After all that had been said about the qualities of the police, he was sure no one would be found to deny to them—who were the one safeguard for the provision of law and order in Ireland, as elsewhere—that protection necessary to enable them to discharge their functions. If the police in Ireland were all that had been described in some of the speeches just delivered— some of which were, perhaps, too eloquent for the occasion—there could be no doubt that, in many parts of Ireland, the Constabulary stood between the great mass of the people and the domination of "Captain Moonlight." They were told by hon. Members opposite that they ought not to put the police in a privileged position, and give them this exceptional protection. Well, he denied that they were giving them any exceptional protection, or putting them in any privileged position, because they had a particular partiality for policemen. They gave it for the law—by giving it to the police they gave it to every quiet and law-abiding citizen. They were told that exceptional protection was not given to the police in the most dangerous slums of London; but the police in London were not in the position of ordinary individuals in that respect. If an ordinary citizen were assaulted, the punishment for the offence could not exceed one year's imprisonment; but for an assault on a policeman while in the execution of his duty a punishment of two years' imprisonment could be inflicted—
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that protection was not given to policemen in England before Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was going on to say that that severe penalty could only be inflicted upon indictment before a jury; but it had already been decided on principle by the Committee that, in certain parts of Ireland, they could not trust the juries. That point was, therefore, settled; and the question now was,

    1061
    whether they should give the policeman some sort of extra protection which they did not give to the private citizen? Surely, if there was any quarter of the United Kingdom in which the servants and emissaries of the law ought to have special security and protection, and ought to be looked upon with special sanctity, it was Ireland at this moment; and for that very simple reason the Government could not accept this Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was glad to observe such a pleasant contrast between the calmness of the Chief Secretary and the somewhat despotic vehemence of the Home Secretary. There was no reason whatever why they should not discuss the proposal of his hon. Friend in a spirit of calmness and perfect good humour. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had introduced his proposal in language the moderation of which no one could think of denying, unless it were the Home Secretary, who was not, perhaps, altogether accountable for the temper in which he spoke. While he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was ready to thank the Chief Secretary for the tone of his remarks, he wished to point out this to the right hon. Gentleman, and recommend it for serious discourse between himself and his conscience. When they were discussing a previous portion of the Bill, the object of which was to suspend trial by jury, the right hon. Gentleman came down with a long array of figures, and was ready to prove—no doubt to his own satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of hon. Members of the Committee—that trial by jury had broken down. But where were his statistics now? He was able to give them a statement as to murders, and the number of prisoners brought to trial; and he had been able to show them the number of cases in which, where trials had taken place, the proceedings had resulted in the acquittal of the persons accused. Where were those statistics now? The right hon. Gentleman's whole case was backed up and founded on the figures that he was able to lay before the Committee. Where were those figures now? The right hon. Gentleman had said, "It has been agreed that trial by jury has broken down." Well, suppose they admitted themselves convinced by the arguments and the figures of the right hon. Gentleman— supposing they admitted that trial by
    1062
    jury had broken down in the case of Ireland, had trial by jury broken down in one single case of assault upon a constable? How could it have broken down in the face of the facts stated by his hon. Friend, and not denied, because it was a fact founded on the official figures of the Government—how could it have broken down in face of the fact that no constable had been assaulted? That was a matter he recommended for serious, if not pious, discourse between the right hon. Gentleman and his conscience, which, he trusted, still remained to the right hon. Gentleman, and would ever remain to him untouched even by the duties of the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. It was said that the constables should be protected, and so they should when it was proved that they were in need of protection; but it could not be said that a body of men were in need of protection when it had been shown that not one of them had been assaulted.
    MR. GIBSON: Within the past few months constables in Ireland have been stoned almost to death.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Within the past five months?
    MR. GIBSON: Yes.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, if that was the case, why was it not stated in the official Returns? The police had given Returns of agrarian and other outrages; and if these attacks which were referred to were made upon the Constabulary, surely they were reported, and if they were reported, why were they not mentioned in the document laid on the Table of the House? He was really astonished that he should have to labour an argument upon a question like this before the House—to show that they should not suspend trial by jury in the case of offences which, as a matter of fact, had never taken place. What would be the effect of the clause? The words were "commits an assault on any constable," &c. It did not say what kind of an assault, as an hon. Friend of his had pointed out in an earlier part of the evening. According to the technical interpretation of the law, an assault might mean a man shaking his fist in another person's face. He saw an impatient gesture on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, who was in the habit of indulging in an amount of facial expression that would do credit

    1063
    to Madame Sarah Bernhardt-Damala in one of her performances. But an assault might mean shaking your fist at a person, or "making a face" at a man, to use an expression adopted by the Attorney General for Ireland when he was defending the rights of the working men of this country. The Irish people were convinced that everyone who even put his finger to his nose to an officer of the law would be liable to six months' imprisonment for thus desecrating that royal person. The Government ought to be ashamed of this clause. If he thought there was any shame in them, he should think there was some virtue in them; but, as he failed to see the shame in the first place, he was afraid every hope of being able to find virtue in Her Majesty's Ministers had gone.
    MR. DILLONsaid, he very well knew there was no need of any special protection for the Constabulary of Ireland; and the reason was that the police-constable in Ireland was armed, while the police-constable in England was not armed. Furthermore, in Ireland, the Constabulary went about in large numbers. Even in the smallest villages their numbers were so great that they were only too able and too ready to protect themselves. An interjection had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to the effect that some policemen had been almost stoned to death within the past few months. If that were so, the offenders could be tried under the ordinary law dealing with grievous assaults. They were not going to hold that a police-constable was not a "person;" but the object of this sub-section was that an assault of a slight character, which could not be placed in the category of an "aggravated crime of violence against the person"—as would be the stoning to death referred to—should be punished with the full rigour of this clause if committed on a constable. The offence under this clause, for which the punishment of the Bill might be inflicted, might be a trifling assault committed in self-defence; and what the Irish Members said was, that it had been brought under their notice—it had been brought prominently under his own notice—that the police in the South and West of Ireland had, in numberless cases, given most frightful provocation to the people.
    1064
    In one instance, at the beginning of the evictions, and just after his own arrest, he got numberless letters describing how provocation had been given; and in a particular case to which his attention had been called, the special correspondent of The Freeman's Journal of Dublin, a gentleman who was above suspicion in these matters, who was a friend of his own, and a man whose word ho knew could be implicitly relied upon, had told him that whilst walking along the road in the performance of his duty as a journalist, he was, without the slightest warning, struck from behind and knocked down. If that man, who was there as a journalist describing the incidents of that famous campaign, had offered any resistance to the police — which, of course, it would have been impossible for him to do, as he was suddenly assailed from behind and knocked down before he had the least idea of what was going to be done—if he had even raised his arm to prevent himself from being struck, that would have been an action that could have been constituted into an offence under this section. The Committee had ample evidence, not only that the police were able to protect themselves, but that they were rather too quick in protecting themselves, and that very often they were the aggressors. If the Government wanted to give the police additional protection, he would say—"Very well, give them additional protection by all means, but deprive them of rifles and bayonets and their military gear, and send them out armed only as the police of any other country are armed; give them the arms that you give the police in this country. "But it was absurd to say that policemen who went about with bayonets and carbines and revolvers were unable to protect themselves against trivial assaults. If they were seriously assaulted, then the case would come under the other subsection; but if the assault was only of a trivial character, then the offence would come under this special sub-section; and he repeated, that in the case of men armed as they were, protection of this kind was absurd and unnecessary.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if he would state what class of weapons the Constabulary in Ireland were provided with? Was it not the fact

    1065
    that they had the revolver, the carbine, the bayonet, the sword, and the baton? Did they not carry their weapons both to Mass and to market? In no single instance had the arguments the Irish Members had used against this subsection been contradicted, although, in truth, he must say that their arguments in reference to this clause were no bettor and no worse than they were against any other clause of the Bill. ["Hear, hear."] He was glad to hear an approving cheer from the other side of the House. What was the fact? Why, that since last January there had not been a single assault against the police. The Home Secretary, who, when his Chief was not in the House, was only too glad to have an opportunity of swaggering and using language—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has used a term which ought not to be used in debate.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was only too glad— unlike his Leader the Prime Minister—-to treat the Irish Members without the respect that was due to logical argument. They had shown the Home Secretary that in January, February, March, April, and May, there had not, in the whole of Ireland, been a single assault committed upon any constable; and they had asked the Government what answer they could possibly make to that argument? The reply was simply a statement that his hon. Friend had made speeches calculated to incite persons to acts of violence against the police. Not only had there not been any assaults upon the police of recent date, but in other respects this Proviso they were discussing was most unprovoked. It was unprovoked on this ground. It would be remembered that it had been said that one reason for this Act was because they could not get evidence against accused persons; but the evidence in a case where a person was charged with assaulting a policeman would be the evidence of the policemen himself. And it was well known that in Ireland a policeman would never hesitate to swear anything that was necessary to prove his case. He himself had witnessed a circumstance in the South of Ireland which fully substantiated, to his mind, the truth of this assertion. He had witnessed a case in which both policeman and Sub-Inspector went into
    1066
    the box and committed deliberate perjury; and if the Committee took Ireland through they would find that that was the kind of character that the police bore in every village and town in the country.
    MR. M'COAN: Nothing of the kind. I deny the accuracy of the assertion.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) was not very well acquainted with Ireland. He believed his knowledge of it was entirely confined to the period of an election contest.
    MR. M'COAN: It is perfectly untrue that the police bear that character, and that that is the feeling that exists all over Ireland with regard to the Constabulary.
    MR. BORLASErose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether the observations of the hon. Member for Wexford were in Order, and whether the character of a whole body of men could be blackened in this manner?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, if he makes use of these statements, must do it on his own responsibility; but I cannot say they are unparliamentary.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he had stated that which he knew to be the case on his own responsibility. ["No, no !"] Yes, at least what he had stated he had stated on his own responsibility—it could not be contradicted, and he adhered to what he had said. The Irish Constabulary had three functions. In the first place, if they found a donkey straying on the road they impounded it; secondly, if they found a man in charge of a cart with no name on it they arrested him; and, thirdly, when, they found a man drunk in the streets, they took him to the police-barrack, locked him up, and afterwards brought him before a magistrate. These were their duties; but, so far as the detection of crime was concerned, the Force was perfectly useless.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the police. That question has already been ruled out of Order, and I, therefore, must request him to confine himself to the Amendment before us.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was showing the necessity for the Amendment; but if the Chairman ruled him out of Order, he must put those particular matters aside. He would stand on the general

    1067
    declaration that in the Return furnished to the House it was not shown that during the past five months there had been a single assault on the police. The Chief Secretary was famous for his statistics; yet he had not ventured to give one single instance in support of his demand for the inclusion of this word "constable" in the sub-section. That was only another specimen of the way in which the Government dealt with the arguments of Irish Members. To the arguments of the Irish Members, whether good, bad, or indifferent, the answer given to them was always the same— namely, "They bad made up their minds." But for the purpose of exposing the character of the provisions of this Bill, and the pretensions and the conduct of the Government, his hon. Friends were determined to proceed, not only with this, but with all other Amendments.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had risen to speak several times on a point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot rise to speak on a point of Order that has been already settled.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, it was really impossible for those who did nothing to protract the debate, and who desired that it should not be protracted, to sit still and listen to such attacks upon the Irish Constabulary. An attack had been made upon the Constabulary, and reasons had been given why the Force should not receive the protection which it was proposed to give them by this Bill. The police were described by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—in language of unusual exaggeration for him — as cruel, dissolute, and drunken; and that charge had not been supported by a shadow of evidence or an iota of proof. Yet, everyone bad sat still; oven the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had sat still. Instantly, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had risen in fine phrensy, and challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman, asking why he did not reply and answer his hon. Friend? The reply of the Home Secretary was—"I do not wish to give prominence to these exaggerations—to these charges;" and the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down. Then came this flood of abuse against the Constabulary. He was not going to press this matter further, as it
    1068
    would be out of Order to do so; but this he would say, speaking with a far greater knowledge of Ireland than was possessed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the members of the Irish Constabulary were the sons and brothers of the farmers of Ireland, and the most respectable men of the class to which they belonged—
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: said, he rose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman, if the adverse criticisms of some hon. Members were out of Order, were not the eulogies pronounced on the Irish police by the right hon. and learned Gentleman also out of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was simply answering in a sentence the very strong censures passed on the police by the hon. Member for Wexford, which I, when challenged, ruled were not unparliamentary, but must rest on the hon. Member's own responsibility. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) is not going to carry the discussion any further.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, it was not his intention to pursue this matter further; but this he would say, that, until three years ago, this clause would have been as unnecessary for the protection of the Constabulary of Ireland as for the protection of any class in Her Majesty's Dominions. There were no men better trusted or more respected in Ireland through all times of trouble and disorder. But it was said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on that side of the House that Parliament should not protect the Constabulary from common assault because they were armed and went about in large bodies. "Why was it necessary that they should carry these arms now, if it had never been necessary before? The Constabulary had gone about the country armed like ordinary police until the last three years. [Cries of "Never, never; not for 20 years!"] If the advice of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway was followed, these outrages would go on; the Constabulary would be armed with carbines and bayonets; the Force would do its duty, as it had done during the last two or three years, and nothing might interfere for a time to disturb the normal condition of things; but at some unexpected moment, and under fearful provocation, a terrible fray would break out, when

    1069
    serious injury would be done to the people, and another great accusation would be made against the Irish Constabulary, whose duty it had been to maintain law and order in that country.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had managed, like so many other speakers from the Front Bench, to altogether avoid the point put by the Mover of the Amendment. The argument of his hon. Friend was not founded on the misconduct of the Irish police, but upon the Reports sent in by the Government. For five months there had not been a single Report in which mention was made of an agrarian assault upon the police. That was the case; let the Government answer it if they could. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that it was only within the last three years that the Constabulary had gone about armed with carbines, bayonets, and revolvers; but a right hon. Member in the House had seen the Constabulary armed in that manner 14 years ago. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) visited Ireland 14 years ago, he found every Irish policeman with a bayonet by his side. Whenever the conduct of the police was challenged, the reply was always the same—"They are sons and brothers of the Irish farmers." But was it, he would ask, the sons and brothers of the Irish farmers who killed M'Cormick, who killed an old woman in County Mayo, and did all those acts which had made the Force stink in the nostrils of the people?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he hoped there would be an increasing disposition manifested to discuss this matter without passion. He did not endorse the description that had been given of the Constabulary Force by his hon. Friends near him; but, at the same time, he was bound to confess that he was far from endorsing the sweeping eulogy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). He thought a distinction ought to be made between the rank-and-file of the Constabulary and those leaders of the Constabulary who, on some occasions, were placed in authority. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee was quite right in recalling certain circumstances which had occurred
    1070
    in the county which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) represented, and in speaking of these circumstances as discreditable to the Force; but they were discreditable to the officers, and not to the men, and they had had, not solitary instances, but frequent instances, of the same thing. When the Chief Secretary said that in the present condition of Ireland the life of a policeman, without any distinction of grade, and without any qualification as to the person, was to be regarded with particular sanctity, he took leave to say that the lives of the people of Ireland ought also to be regarded with particular sanctity. He would venture to say that in the towns of Belmullet and Ballina, more harm had been done to the cause of law and order, and the lives of the people, and the peace and tranquillity of the country, by the mal-administration of the officers of the police, than by any other party in the county he represented.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he had known the Irish police for 40 years, and he never remembered them to go about unarmed; they had always worn side-arms. Surely it was within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that one of the rules issued from the head-quarters of the Constabulary in Dublin was that no Irish policeman should go on duty without his sidearms. The men always went about in two's, and, unfortunately, they carried themselves with a swaggering air; and the result of their demeanour, and the fact that they were an armed soldiery rather than a police, made them, to be regarded as a kind of standing menace to the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had insinuated that whatever imputations were made on the character of the police were entirely the result of the action of a section of the Irish Members during the last two or three years. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a description of the Irish Constabulary given by an impartial foreigner 20 years ago?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must remember that the question before the Committee is simply as to assaults on the police.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, that was so; and he desired, as much as anyone, to adhere to the question under discussion.

    1071
    He maintained that the ordinary law was sufficient to protect the constable, and that if they were not trained into the adoption of an offensive manner, there would he fewer assaults upon them than perhaps there were. Ho had been just about to call attention to the opinion of an impartial foreigner. It had been said that the charges against the Constabulary rested entirely upon the testimony of a few of the Irish Members who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House; but he appealed to the evidence of Dr. Olenberg, a gentleman celebrated in German literature, who had travelled, 20 years ago, in Ireland. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had ever read Dr. Olenberg's beautiful book; but if he had not, he would point out to him that that writer's description of the Irish policeman was simply "a cosmopolitan ruffian." Well, he (Dr. Commins) was afraid that the Irish policeman was a greater "cosmopolitan ruffian" to-day than he was 20 years ago; and he was afraid that it was that same cosmopolitan ruffianism which had led to those scenes which had recently been witnessed at Belmnllet and Ballina. Certainly, the existing law was quite sufficient for the protection of the police without giving them these extra provisions. If this sub-section were adopted in its unamended form, he believed it would be largely to stimulate those qualities which had made the police so offensive to the people.
    MR. MARUMsaid, that, having had a good deal of experience of the Irish Constabulary, he should not be acting fairly towards them if he did not say that ho had always found them to be respectable men. He had had a great deal to do with them, and felt bound to testify to their good conduct and exceptional character. Ho altogether concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the County of Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) with regard to the character of the men; but, at the same time, he was bound to admit that the officers in command of them sometimes acted very imprudently. They did so at Bally-ragget—the Attorney General for Ireland might smile.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I did nothing of the kind.
    MR. MARUMsaid, that the Bally-ragget case had been investigated, and no punishments had been inflicted; but he must say that the officers in command of the Constabulary had acted very imprudently, and one person had lost his life through a stab from behind. As to the rank-and-file, however, he could not allow imputations to be hurled indiscriminately at them without rising to say what he knew about them.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that if the Committee really knew what an Irish policeman was, there might be some hope of winning hon. Members over to the views of himself and his Friends. Their argument was, that the Committee had not the faintest idea of what were the character and functions of the Irish police. He would not pursue this point further; but this much, in justice to himself and all present, he felt bound to say for the Irish police— in many respects they were a body of men of whom Irishmen should be proud. They were, as had been said, the sons and brothers of the Irish farmers; they were true specimens of the Irish race, and very different were they from the pictures of the Irish people, from the type of Irishmen put before the eyes of the English people day after day in the illustrated journals of this country. They were a fine, able, and courageous body of men, and their faults, such as they were, were made for them by the Government under which they lived. They were a spoilt body of men. In any other capacity they would do credit to the country; but as policemen, they were failures.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he wished to explain, in a very few words, why he could not vote with his hon. Friends opposite on this occasion. They were now considering what was to be done to a person who assaulted the police in the execution of their duty. In the case of a common assault the punishment was two months' imprisonment or fine, and that was imposed by magistrates in Petty Sessions. They could eliminate that point altogether, because the Government had undertaken to put in the words "in the execution of his duty," or something to that effect. Now, then, they had to consider what was to be done to a person who assaulted a policeman in the performance of his duty. Persons were ordinarily indicted

    1073
    before a jury for that offence; but under this Bill there might be no jury. As far as he was concerned, he had not joined in the attack on the Irish juries. He believed they had endeavoured to do their duty. No doubt, in time of great commotion and political excitement, they might have been betrayed into some mistakes; but the Committee must look forward to the time when juries would be without reproach. Now, if a person was brought before a jury charged with assaulting a constable whilst in the discharge of his duty, and found guilty, he was liable to two years' imprisonment. But, under this Bill, a person would be tried before one legal gentleman, with an assessor, and, when convicted, his punishment would be limited to six months. He, therefore, contended that a person assaulting a policeman in the execution of his duty under this Bill would be in a much better position than he was in before. In the first place, he would not have to wait to be tried, but would be tried at once; and, in the next place, he would receive a mitigated punishment. He (Mr. Thompson) hoped that on that occasion no unwise speeches would be made, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite would lay aside their angry passions, and that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there were two points before the Committee—one of them related to the Amendment proposed, and the case of the Government in asking for special legislation in regard to Ireland; and the other related to the general character of the police. Some of the speeches he had heard, and others that had been described to him, seemed to have been delivered by hon. Gentlemen with a very inadequate sense of that responsibility which they had mentioned, but which they did not seem to be alive to. It was a very serious matter if Members of that House described those charged with the execution of the law, in the circumstances Ireland was now in, in language of vituperation—for that was not too strong a word, considering the epithets which had been applied to the police. He must say it appeared to him that if it were true that this body of police in Ireland deserved the application of such epithets, they deserved a great deal more than having them applied to their character in speeches de-
    1074
    livered in that House to-day, and, so far as the House was concerned, perhaps forgotten to-morrow. They ought to be embodied in specific charges; they ought to be embodied in some distinct and definite issue. But, if it were true that the Government intrusted the execution of the law in Ireland to men who deserved such a description, then, indeed, the subject was one of the utmost gravity, and one that ought not to be lightly dealt with. But these irresponsible epithets in passing speeches, delivered, perhaps, in a moment of excitement, but, at any rate, speeches which carried with them no practical responsibility, which were not brought to account, and which invited no test, and admitted of no test, whether they were true or false, was not the mode in which a matter so grave ought to be treated. No one had a right to weaken the arm of the Executive Government for the enforcement of the law, unless it were true that the charges could be made good, and proof given of the unworthiness of the Force. He must confess he believed, for the most part, there was a character of great novelty in these accusations. In general the character of the Constabulary in Ireland had been criticized upon grounds entirely apart from the character and conduct of those who composed it. The question that used to be raised was, whether it was a Force with too much of a military and too little of a civil character. But here were totally different matters. As to the courage and conduct of these men, he believed that from one end of the country to the other there was but one opinion. When those condemnations against the Irish Constabulary — as vague as they were strong, and as vague as they were violent—had been uttered in that House, it was but fair to place upon record the fact that they proceeded from a very small minority of Irish Members. They were not sustained by the general sense of the Representatives of the people, and their character had been such, and the moral impression produced by them had been such, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Thompson), sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, who had made himself conspicuous beyond almost any of the English or Scotch Members in giving sympathy and support to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had been repelled from that

    1075
    co-operation—he had been repelled by the character of those attacks. As to the arguments against the proposal of the Government, it was said that this Government had no case, because, since a recent date, there had been no attack upon a member of the Constabulary Force in Ireland. But he must say that when they were engaged in an operation of this description, and when they were introducing an enlargement of summary jurisdiction, it was necessary to proceed upon a basis of a general character. It was not necessary to prove specific cases, and to make good imputations and accusations, when they were making changes of this character. If they were making a change that was cruel and severe on any class of the community, the case would be different; but they were doing no such thing. They were giving a great mitigation of the sentence that might be inflicted. Under these circumstances, he begged the Committee to recollect that it was not in the power of any Government to come down from week to week, and from month to month, and ask Parliament for fresh Amendments to and a fresh adjustment of work of this kind. They must take a general view of what had been happening in Ireland, and what offences had come into vogue, and what dangers might be considered to have arisen on the horizon of the future. It was by these things they must be guided in making their proposals; and it was no argument in support of the contention of the unreasonableness of the changes to say that some months had elapsed since there had been an attack on the police in Ireland.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had not the good fortune to live in Ireland; therefore, he could not speak with the force of hon. Friends around him as to the character of the Constabulary. He had observed, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who did live in Ireland, spoke in strong terms of the statement to the effect that the Constabulary had been long armed with bayonets. Well, he (Mr. M'Carthy) could remember the Irish police much longer than the right hon. and learned Gentleman could. He could remember them 40 years ago, and he could say that in those days they used to wear the bayonet, the old-
    1076
    fashioned triangular sidearm. There had been no change in this respect, therefore, for at least 40 years. He wished to bring the Committee back to the real question before it—namely, was there to be a special protection for the police? Was there any special necessity for their protection? Had there been, recently, any increase in the number of attacks on the Police Force in Ireland? If the figures brought forward by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) were incorrect, surely their incorrectness could be shown in the easiest possible way, and the Home Secretary could tell what had rendered this special legislation necessary. He understood that there had been no assaults on the police in Ireland this year arising out of agrarian crime. The Home Secretary had got into an exalted mood over the figures, and said he was not going to concern himself in replying to mere statistics. But how could they judge of a question of this kind without consulting the figures which the Home Secretary despised? The action of the Home Secretary recalled to his mind a dispute between two German philosophers, one of whom contended that to have and not to have were exactly the same thing. When the other, in reply, asked whether to have 100 dollars and not to have 100 dollars were the same thing, the first-named philosopher grandly declared that he could not concern himself about dollars. That was the mood of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he could not concern himself about figures; but he (Mr. M'Carthy) being of a much humbler order of mind, and not knowing very much about the minutiæ of this question, owing to his long residence in England, wanted to learn something about the occasion for this special protection of the police apart from the existing very efficient laws. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had stated that there had been no assaults of an agrarian character on the police this year. He was convinced by that fact that there was no occasion for special legislation. He urged the right hon. and learned Gentleman for one moment to come down from his Olympian heights of statesmanship and give some practical justification for the extraordinary proposal he made.
    MR. CORRYsaid, he had abstained hitherto from taking part in these de-

    1077
    bates; but the attacks made on the Police Force on this occasion were such that he, as one who had lived for so long a time, and had seen and known, perhaps, more about the Irish police than some other Members from Ireland, wished to bear his testimony to their efficiency, and to the fact that they were a most respectable class of men, and performed their duties very satisfactorily. With reference to the assaults on the police, he was very glad to see this clause in the Bill, because he felt that the police were not so well protected as they ought to be, and he hoped the Government would stand firmly by the clause.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEwished to refute altogether the attacks made on the police by some hon. Members opposite. He had seen a great deal of the police, and had had occasion to compare their discipline and conduct with some of the best regiments in Her Majesty's Service. In regard to discipline and conduct, they compared very well with any regiment in the Service, and the attacks made upon them were quite unjustifiable.
    MR. O'KELLYmaintained that, notwithstanding the general good conduct of the police in Ireland, there were occasions when they were guilty of acts of gross violence towards the people, and when they conducted themselves in a most violent and disorderly manner. About a year ago there was some disturbance in the town of Roscommon, and the police very properly cleared the streets. But, while performing that duty, they broke into the houses of the residents and clubbed men who had nothing whatever to do with the disturbances; and in one case, while three or four of these policemen, were clubbing an old man in his own house, one of these very orderly policemen whom the Prime Minister loved to honour, was holding the old man's daughter at bay with a drawn bayonet when she was trying to protect her father. He himself had had an opportunity, on one occasion, of testing the tyrannical conduct of these police. Arriving in Roscommon about 11 o'clock one night, some of the boys of the town came down to meet him and formed a procession. There was perfect quiet and order in the town; but, suddenly, the County Inspector drove by on a car, and, seeing the procession, ordered four policemen to disperse it, although they were not interfering with anybody. The
    1078
    four policemen were drawn across the street in the dark with their loaded guns, which he found pointed in his face. That was an evidence of the good order of the policemen; but he was sure no soldier would be guilty of such an outrage, and no Government ought to permit such an act of ruffianism. It would, however, be useless to make any complaint of these occurrences, and no complaint was made of this instance.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I hope any hon. Members who speak will speak to the Amendment, and not to the general conduct of the police.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Prime Minister had challenged hon. Members to bring forward specific charges against the police. The argument was that the conduct of these police led to assaults, and the Prime Minister said statements were made without being supported by particular cases. If anybody would turn to the Books of the House they would find that at least 1,000 Questions had been put to the late Chief Secretary in which allegations were made against the police, but which the right hon. Gentleman refused to inquire into. It was due to the present Chief Secretary to state that his conduct had been very different to that, for, in every instance of complaint, at least an inquiry had been made. The Prime Minister made two conflicting statements. First, with reference to the figures, he said it was not necessary to make good accusation and allegation; and then he said a general view must be taken of what had happened and was likely to happen in Ireland. That was exactly the position of the hon. Members; but they did not take up such an extreme position as to say that it was not necessary to make good allegation and accusation. But what right had the right hon. Gentleman to charge him with bringing vague charges against the police, when he himself made the statement that it was not necessary to make good allegation and accusation? The right hon. Gentleman had two voices—for Irish Members figures proved nothing; for him (Mr. Gladstone) they proved everything, and were incontestable. Irish Members had shown that this year there had been no assaults on the police arising out of agrarian cases, and the answer of the Prime Minister was that a general view must be taken. The arguments contra-

    1079
    dicted each other, and would not at all hang together.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he did not share the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who eulogized the police in almost extravagant terms. At the same time, he did not entirely share the opinions of those who had, in an equally extravagant way, denounced the entire Police Force. No one felt more strongly than he that very many cases of cruelty, and almost barbarity, had occurred in regard to the conduct of the police. In particular cases there could be no question that very great cruelty had been perpetrated by members of the Police Force. And no one could read what happened at Ballina and other places, where even women had been stabbed to death by the police, without acknowledging that he was strongly of opinion that those cases did not afford justification for the general condemnation of the entire body. He would not enter more fully into this matter, as the Chairman had ruled that the conduct of the Constabulary could not be discussed now; but he thought he was justified in making that remark. But the case in favour of this Amendment did not rest upon a charge against the Constabulary Force. The case of Irish Members was simply that trial by jury had not failed in cases of assaults against constables, for the very simple reason that there had been no assaults at all; and only the Government could prove by figures that there had been cases of assaults by constables, and that juries had refused to convict. He submitted that they had absolutely no justification for the proposal in this Bill. The Prime Minister had said it was conceded that trial by jury must be abolished in certain parts of Ireland, and, therefore, the Committee could not go into each particular offence; but what he (Mr. Redmond) contended was that by Sub-section (c), which had already been passed, assaults upon constables were covered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), when he said there had been no assaults on constables, made the remark that a number of constables had been stoned to death; but surely a case of that kind came under other sections of the Bill, and Sub-section (c) provided that any per-
    1080
    son charged with an aggravated assault upon a policeman should be tried by magistrates without a jury. That provision covered all aggravated assaults against constables and trivial assaults, and for more important offences there was this special tribunal. But before the Government took this special tribunal, they were bound to produce evidence that trial by jury had failed in this respect. He did not think Subsection (c) was at all required to cover aggravated assaults against constables, because previous sections, already passed, gave sufficient power for that purpose.
    MR. R. POWERdesired to express his regret that so much heat had been thrown into this debate, and to say that he could not join in the wholesale denunciations which had been made of the Constabulary. He quite agreed that there had been cases in which they had acted very cruelly and unjustly, and he could give many such instances; but it was most unjust and unfair to describe a body of men like the Royal Constabulary—a class numbering 12,000 men— as a body of murderers, and he wished to enter his protest against such a charge. At the same time, he thought extra police protection was unnecessary and uncalled for, and that this clause would render the Constabulary Force more unpopular than it had hitherto been.
    MR. METGEsaid, he had had some connection with the police, and he also disagreed with the wholesale denunciations of that Force which some hon. Members had indulged in. At the same time, the argument that there had been not one iota of foundation for the charges against the police was manifestly false, because, over and over again, particular cases of misconduct by the Constabulary had been substantiated. The danger of this clause seemed to him to be, that while it protected the police, it afforded no protection to those cases in which the constables could use their authority to drive the people into the commission of those very assaults for which they would be prosecuted. He had in his mind a case whore the police, acting on their own individual responsibility, had aggravated the people beyond the limits of human endurance; and in cases of that kind it was very hard that, while the police were to be afforded protection under this clause,

    1081
    the people would have no protection at all.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he was inclined to oppose this Amendment, because, at the present time, the magistrates had power to give two months' imprisonment for assaults upon the police, while, under this Bill, they would be able to impose six months. He should not have seen much objection to increasing the period of imprisonment for assaults on the police, if the Home Secretary had accepted any qualification of the word "assault;" but he must not be held by the views he expressed as endorsing the serious charges which had been made against the Constabulary. In some cases he had condemned the action of the Constabulary as strongly as anybody, and his chief objection to the Force was its military character. If it were a civil force, as the police were in England, there would be much less objection to it.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had not risen before, because he found that he was only called upon to rise when there was no other Member to speak.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has twice made that remark. He imputes partiality to the Chair, and I must ask him to withdraw the expression.
    MR. CALLANwithdrew the remark, and expressed his regret that his hon. Friends behind him had selected the words "any constable" upon which to found an Amendment. He had known the Irish police officers; and he thought it only right, knowing the police as well as he did, to express his divergence from the opinion of those who had condemned the Irish Constabulary. He believed a great deal of the irritation complained of had been caused by the officers, and not by the men themselves. He considered the Irish Police Force a model Force for high character, and the conscientious discharge of their duties, subject to the unfair and undue influence of their superior officers.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must see that this Amendment is not on the merits of the police, but is only upon the question whether they are to be protected from assault.
    MR. CALLANthought he had a right to discuss the conduct of the officers of the Constabulary.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that he is out of Order in discussing the general character of the
    1082
    police. He must speak of the Amendment, and I must not warn him again.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had a right to discuss what the Constabulary was. He had heard hon. Members behind him discuss that point without being called to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have as much as possible tried to keep the Committee within the Amendment. I have constantly spoken of the irrelevancy of the remarks made. The hon. Member cannot speak on this subject, and this is the Inst time I shall warn him.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was simply speaking with reference to aggravated assaults on the police. Assaults with violence upon constables ought to be punished more than assaults on any other person. Many of the remarks made on the police had been made without a proper appreciation of the way in which they had done their duty, and he had endeavoured to point out that much of the ill-feeling against the police had been raised, not by their conduct, but by the conduct of their officers. He had never heard of an Irish policeman saying to a civilian that he would take him by the throat and throw him into a mill-race, if he said a word of opprobrium; but he had heard a Sub-Inspector say that. If the Sub-Inspector was to be allowed to use such language to a civilian, that would be a constructive assault, and he did not know why there should be extra punishment imposed upon a civilian if he used similar language to the police. The whole of the opprobrium and obloquy attached to the Police Force in Ireland was due to the action of the superior officers, and, therefore, he could not support the Amendment, although it had been proposed by some of his own Friends, and he should be obliged to walk out of the House if a division took place.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had not made any general charge whatever, and he was astonished to hear the Prime Minister dealing with general charges. He had simply asserted the proved competency of juries to deal with these cases, and referred to specific cases in Dublin and Mayo, and said that, in view of the agrarian nature of the services which the police had to perform, and the hardships which they had to undergo, it was desirable that the civilians should have the protection of the jury.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 154; Noes 25: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 134.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he wished to add, at the end of Subsection (d,) the words "whilst in the execution of his duty or in consequence thereof."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 39, after the word "law," to add the words "whilst in the execution of his duty or in consequence thereof."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would not agree to leave the latter part of the Amendment out— namely, the words "or in consequence thereof?" The Amendment was vague, but it did not need very much alteration. He should he unwilling to divide the Committee on the matter; but, in order to put the thing in proper form, he would move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words he had mentioned.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or in consequence thereof."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it would be impossible to accept the Amendment for the reason that, although a constable would be under protection in the immediate discharge of his duty, as soon as that duty was over—it might be whilst he was on his way to it or returning home from it—he would not be under protection, and that might be the most dangerous part of the business. The object of the words it was proposed to omit was to protect a policeman whilst he was going to or returning from his duty.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, in England the time to go on or off duty was fixed by the Police Rules, and assaults committed upon them during the time they were going on duty or going off were considered assaults committed while they were on duty. It would be so in the case of the Irish constables, and there was no necessity for the alteration. It
    1084
    would be quite unnecessary to add the words, and their addition might do a great deal of harm. Suppose, for instance, a policeman, after his duties had ceased, or before he went home, called at a public-house, and suppose he there got into a row and an attack was made upon him, he would be able, if this Amendment were passed in its present form, to say that the attack was made upon him whilst returning from his duty. Or he might say that the assault was committed upon him in consequence of a duty he had performed six months before. In that way it would cover all cases of assault upon a constable, even in a case where one of these men intruded himself where he was not welcome. The Constabulary would be furnished with excuses, when they drew assaults upon themselves, to say they were attacked in consequence of some active duty they had performed.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it could not be seriously contended that when a policeman had been on duty and was returning home that he was not to be protected. He might be going out on duty all night—could it be said that he was not to be protected on going to his duty in the evening or returning on the following day? What was the use of defending a man whilst on his beat if at the very instant he went off duty the protection was not to apply to him?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that under this Amendment a policeman would be under protection for an assault which might be committed upon him in consequence of what he had done six weeks before.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that policemen off duty were never assaulted in Ireland; whenever assaults did occur, it was when the policemen were in the act of discharging their duty, and, therefore, the cases cited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman of policemen being assaulted whilst returning from their duty were altogether imaginary. The Amendment he had on the Paper, proposing to limit the clause to agrarian offences, he should withdraw, as the matter had already been discussed, and he hoped the Home Secretary would reciprocate the spirit in which he did that by meeting arrangement by arrangement. He hoped the Home Secretary would follow the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Mem-

    1085
    ber for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who knew how to be impressive without being offensive, and who did not mistake invective for argument —who knew how to argue great political questions without indulging in abuse.
    Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland agreed to.)
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, he wished to add two paragraphs to the end of the clause to the effect that—
    "The expression 'unlawful assembly' shall mean an assembly of three or more persons, who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will, by such assembly, needlessly, and without any reasonable cause, provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously;
    "And the expression 'riot' shall mean an unlawful assembly which has begun to act in a tumultuous manner to the disturbance of the peace."
    He did think it was desirable there should be some definition of these two expressions, "unlawful assembly" and "riot," because, although they could be said to be words well known to the Judges, yet there had been some difference of opinion, even amongst Judges, when, defining those offences and explaining to a jury what acts rendered the parties accused of their commission liable. And the Committee ought also to look to the fact that it was not exactly a tribunal of Judges who would have to decide questions arising under this section, but that they would go before an inferior tribunal. He proposed, then, to make the law certain on this question, so that there could be no diversity between different tribunals. The tribunals should have some clear definition on which they could decide in eases of "unlawful assembly" and "riot" under the Act. If the Committee would remember the discussion that took place the other evening, they would agree with him that a greater proof could not be given of the necessity of a tribunal of this kind having this definition before them. The definition which the Chief Secretary had given of "an unlawful assembly" was certainly not one that should be adopted in the present day by the Judges. What he (Mr. P. Martin) believed to be the
    1086
    essence of an "unlawful assembly" was an assembly which was calculated, in the minds of calm and rational people, to produce danger to the peace and turmoil in a neighbourhood. It was not a question whether a meeting had assembled for an unlawful purpose; but, having regard to the language made use of, having regard to the persons present, and having regard to the acts of the leaders of the movement, whether the meeting would be likely to endanger the public peace. The definition which he proposed had been sanctioned by authority, and was, as he submitted, exhaustive and comprehensive. As he had stated, the tribunal that would have to judge of these cases would not be a tribunal that would be likely to have books of reference and authorities to refer to to guide them upon all the circumstances which went to constitute an "unlawful assembly;" therefore, was it not better that there should be a definition embodied in the Act? Without something to guide them, the magistrates, where five, or seven, or nine, or a dozen people met together for some purpose they might consider unlawful—as poaching—though those persons did not intend to, or, in fact, excited terror or dread to others, and the circumstances of their meeting were not likely to endanger the peace, might say, "This is an unlawful assembly, and comes under the Act." He wished to render it impossible for them to say that; and he wished, therefore, to lay down a definition to enable the magistrates to come to a certain and just determination. As they had attempted to give a definition of intimidation, he thought it was still more desirable that they should give definitions of "unlawful assembly" and "riot." In that belief he brought forward this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 40, after"Act,"insert—"In this Act, the expression 'unlawful assembly' shall mean an assembly of three or more persons, who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner, or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will, by such assembly, needlessly, and without any reasonable cause, provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously;
    "And the expression 'riot' shall mean an unlawful assembly which has begun to act in a tumultuous manner to the disturbance of the peace."—(Mr. Patrick Martin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for the County of Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that he had produced a definition which, as far as he (the Attorney General) could judge, was very correct indeed; in fact, he could not take any exception to it as a definition. He congratulated the hon. and learned Member on his research, his power of thought, and his originality in producing a definition that would stand the test of investigation. He was satisfied that no member of the English Bar could have produced such a definition; and, seeing that a member of the Irish Bar had been able to do it, there was surely no reason why they should not intrust the Irish Judges with the duty of attempting the same thing, especially when they had such a valuable vade mecum as this definition before them. He failed to see why, when they had the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the County of Kilkenny, those whose duty it was to give the definition should not be able to arrive at a proper one. The question was, should they put any definition at all in the Statute? The Committee must bear in mind, if one person could produce a definition in that way, was it not dangerous that they, acting as a Legislative Body, should accept that one particular definition, to the exclusion of all other definitions? His hon. and learned Friend had said that, because they had the definition of intimidation in the Bill, they ought also to have definitions of "unlawful assembly" and "riot." But it was not correct that they had put the definition of intimidation in the Bill, and they had been found fault with by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite because they had not done so. If they had gone into a definition of that one offence, they would have had to define many other offences—such, for instance, as murder, treason, assault. He thought if they accepted this Amendment, the precedent would be a very dangerous one. Because his hon. and learned Friend had, with rare acumen, been able to discover a definition in one case—he did not know where else the definition could have come from but out of his own resources—it might be said that, there-lore, they should define all other offences.
    1088
    The moment they accepted that Amendment, it would be for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, "Why don't you define such and such an offence?" He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with the sincere compliment he (the Attorney General) desired to pay him, and would not insist on inserting his Amendment in the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 176; Noes 34: Majority 142. — (Div. List, No. 135.)
    Clause 6 (Unlawful associations).
    MR. PARNELLproposed an Amendment, to insert, in Sub-section (a,) after the word "is," the words "and persists in remaining." The sub-section seemed to him a very extraordinary one. It provided that—
    "Every person who is a member of an unlawful association, as denned by this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;"
    and, then, turning to Clause 27 of the Act, defining "unlawful association," he found that the words "unlawful association" meant—
    "An association formed or carrying on operations (a) for the commission of crimes; or (b) for encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes;"
    and the term "crime" meant—
    "Any offence against this Act, and also any crime punishable on indictment by imprisonment with hard labour, or by any greater punishment."
    While, by this 6th clause, membership of an unlawful association, as defined by the Act, was made an offence against the Act, by Clause 27 an association formed for carrying on operations for the commission of crimes, or for encouraging persons to commit crimes, was an offence against the Act; and thus it would happen that, if two magistrates held that any local association for tenant right, or otherwise, was an association formed for purposes of intimidation or for encouraging or aiding persons to commit intimidation, every member of that association, no matter how guiltless he might be of any desire to participate in encouraging intimidation or in intimidation itself, and no matter how much

    1089
    opposed he might be to intimidation, would be liable to be found guilty by a judicial decision of two magistrates that the association to which he belonged was unlawful. Every member of that association would be liable to be found guilty as a matter of consequence under the Act, and would be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. His Amendment had a limiting effect, and he submitted that that was a proper and necessary effect in connection with this portion of the clause. His object in moving the Amendment—it might be possible to carry out the object in better words, and he would leave that to the Government if they accepted the principle—was, that where a judicial decision had been given that an association was an unlawful association, any member of that association might be entitled to escape punishment by withdrawing from membership.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, after the word "is," to insert the words "and persists in remaining."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, nothing could be further from the desire of the Government than that any man should be punished under this section for any act which he did not participate in. The meaning of this section was, that it should be an offence under the Act to be a member of an association which was defined in Clause 27 as an association for the commission or encouragement of crimes. He gathered that the hon. Member for the City of Cork agreed to that extent to the proposition that membership of such an association should be an offence.
    MR. PARNELL: I have not agreed to that proposition yet, because I have not come to it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, any person who was a member of an association which was formed, as would be shown by what was done, for the commission or encouragement of crime, would be guilty of an offence under the Act. No doubt, if any member of such an association showed that he was not in any way cognizant of the objects of the association, or in any way a party to the contemplation by the association of the commission or encouraging of crimes,
    1090
    that man ought to be protected; and, so far, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. But he did not think this Amendment would effect that, because "is, and persists in remaining" might mean a man who had known all the time the character of the association, and that it was an unlawful association; and such a person ought not to escape penalties. If the hon. Member would be satisfied with his assurance that he would consider whether it would be possible to introduce words hereafter which should protect a person who was not cognizant of the character or the acts of the association, then the hon. Member's demand would not be an unreasonable one. The Amendment, however, went further than that, and proposed that no man, being a member of such an association, should be punished until after an adjudication upon the character of the association.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was glad to find that the Government were willing to consider this Amendment, for the importance of it would be seen when it was remembered that in Ireland there were now several associations which it would be impossible to bring under the Act by this clause. He differed from the Home Secretary in thinking that a member of an association must necessarily know whether the association was unlawful or not. On the contrary, he submitted that the definition of an "unlawful association" was so complicated that even to Members of the House it was not easy to know whether an association would come under the Act as an "unlawful association." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would carry his memory back to statements made earlier in these debates, he would see that it was impossible to say whether an association was unlawful. It was necessary to have a clear definition from the Judicial Bench as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of any association before a member could be held guilty. Among the associations in Ireland there was the Ladies' Land League. One of the crimes under this Bill was taking forcible possession. One purpose of the Land League was to help families of political prisoners, and another was to aid the evicted farmers. Now, suppose the Ladies' Land League aided an evicted farmer, and so enabled him and his family to remain in the

    1091
    locality, instead of drifting away, and suppose some member of that family took possession of that farm from which they had been evicted, would the Ladies' Land League, because it had given a grant of money to that family, be held to have encouraged the crime of taking forcible possession, and would membership of that association be an offence under the Act? Then there was the Political Prisoners' Aid Society. It was certain that several of the crimes under this Act would be held to be political crimes. There might be cases of what were called "unlawful assemblies" under the Act which, in the opinion of the Irish people, were held to be political offences, and not ordinary criminal offences. Now, the Prisoners' Aid Society helped the families of political prisoners. Suppose persons who were convicted of taking part in an unlawful assembly, and suppose the Prisoners' Aid Society helped the families of those people, would the Society be held to have encouraged an offence of an unlawful assembly because they aided the families of the prisoners? Then there was the Home Manufacturers' Association in Ireland, whose object was to induce Irishmen to deal, as far as possible, with Irish manufacturers. There were at present many English manufacturers who sold goods extensively in Ireland, and had their agents in the country. If that Association, by public arguments or other inducements, prevailed on the people to transfer their custom from English manufacturers to Irish manufacturers, would it be held that the Association was an unlawful Association, because it had encouraged people to do what, according to the Act, would put the English manufacturers in fear of loss of business? That Society was formed for the express purpose of inducing Irish people to deal in native manufactures; and he wanted to know whether that Association, for inducing people to cease to purchase English manufactures, would be held to have put English manufacturers in fear of loss of business?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not easy to answer questions put on the subject in this way; but certainly the last case put by the hon. Member could not be held to constitute a crime. With regard to the second case—namely, the Society for aiding the families of
    1092
    prisoners, whether political or otherwise —he did not see how anybody could regard that Society as committing or encouraging crime. Then, with regard to the Ladies' Land League, the hon. Member was getting on more delicate ground; and ho should like a little more time to consider that point. There was a clear distinction between a Society which merely had charitable objects in view and an Association intended to bring about a breach of the law. One object might sometimes cover both; and it would be the business of the Courts to see what was the substance of the case; what the Association aimed at; what it was doing; and whether, under cover of charitable objects, it might not, in point of fact, be actively engaged in promoting a breach of the law. Therefore, in regard to the question of the Ladies' Land League, he could not give an answer at this moment. But, with regard to the argument that there must be a decision that an Association was unlawful before a member of it could be held guilty, ho thought that the hon. Member would see that that was not the case. There might be an Association which it was perfectly clear was formed for the purpose of committing crime, and there might be an Association whose object was avowedly to promote some breach of the law, which would be an offence under the Act. In such cases it would be idle to say that there must first be a judicial decision, because the facts of the case would prove that the Association had those objects in view, and that every person who was connected with it must have known its objects. Therefore, it did not appear to him that it was necessary to have a decision antecedent to the operation of this clause.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was of opinion that the adjudication must take place before persons could be convicted as members of an unlawful Association, and the unlawful Association must first be declared to be unlawful.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the adjudication might be on the conduct of an individual who was proved at the same time to be a member of an Association. For instance, one, or two, or three men might be brought before a magistrate, charged with being members of an Association, which it was clear was for the purpose of promoting

    1093
    the commission of offences under the Act; and it might, at the same time, be shown that they were parties to the actions of that Association, and, therefore, perfectly cognizant of its objects. It seemed to him that such men ought not to escape punishment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, his point was with reference to an Association which had not been adjudicated an unlawful Association. Persons might be charged with being members of an unlawful Association—that was their offence; they had committed no other offence. The utmost limit or gravity of their offence would have been a subscription to the Association. Magistrates would receive evidence which would induce them to believe that the Association was of an illegal character; and that unlawful character would have arisen from the acts of persons other than those charged, who would not have been, in that case, guilty of any offence, except the single offence of having subscribed and enrolled themselves in the ranks of the Association. It might be that persons, owing to whose acts the Association was unlawful, had not become amenable; and what he wished to guard against was that any members of an Association, as soon as it had been adjudicated unlawful, should not be held guilty of an offence against the Act, merely because they had become formal members, but had not taken any part in the Association other than by subscribing money to carry out its political objects.
    MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that the foundation of his hon. Friend's argument was this—If new offences were created by this Bill the public would not be aware of them until the Act came into operation, and until there was a judicial determination as to what were new offences; and, therefore, nobody ought to be bound by the character of those offences. If the Home Secretary would say whether new offences were created under the Bill, he apprehended it would be only fair that the public should have notice by judicial decision as to what those offences were; and until such decision was pronounced, a man ought not to be criminally liable for what he did not believe to be a crime. That was the plain distinction, which was the foundation of the hon. Member's argument; and it had not yet received an answer from the Treasury Bench.
    MR. STOREYsaid, the force of this clause could only be seen when it was looked at in conjunction with Clause 4, which had already been passed; and he would show the Committee what that force was. Under Clause 4, if there were any Associations such as those already existing in Ireland, which drew all the labourers in a district from their work in order to create a rise of wages, which was a legitimate proceeding in England, and was commonly adopted by trades unions, that Association would be liable under this Act. And immediately that was done every member of that Association, which was a perfectly legitimate institution in England, became a member of an illegal Association; and, according to the Home Secretary, because of that fact alone, and not because of any act of his own, he became liable to punishment under this Act. If the Home Secretary could only convince a few Members of the Committee that that was not the case, he would have a great deal less work than he had now; but he (Mr. Storey), having had a great deal of experience of trades unions in the North, could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if Clause 4 meant anything, it introduced a different state of the law in Ireland from that in England. It prevented in Ireland what was perfectly legal in England; and those members of an Association which did what was legal in England might be punished for simply being members of a similar Association in Ireland. In Sunderland it was a common thing in the shipyards for one body of men to draw other men out. That process was easily explained; there were certain superior workmen in the yards, and if they were drawn out the whole of the other workmen in the yard, who might, perhaps, number 10 times as many as the men drawn out, would be stopped in their work, and the employers would not be able to complete their contracts. Suppose an Association did that in Ireland. The Attorney General said that if men simply struck to benefit themselves, that would not be an illegal action; but if they struck in order to make their employer do something which he did not wish to do, then it became an illegal act. Upon that showing, members of an Association who struck for the purpose of securing some advantage to a certain class of men could all be

    1095
    put into gaol for six months, simply be- I cause they were members. What did the hon. Member for the City of Cork ask? The hon. Member asked that there should, first of all, be a distinct definition of any act that was illegal, and that was so slight a thing that the Home Secretary might agree to accede to the demand and make the law in Ireland the same as that in England.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was sincerely desirous to meet any objections upon this clause. The adjudication of an unlawful Association by a magistrate could only take place on proceedings against some individual; but the hon. Member seemed to contemplate some abstract decision of the Court upon an Association apart from any individual member of it. That could not be so; there must be some proceedings against a person who was a member of an unlawful Association. A man must know that such an Association was unlawful in the way in which everybody knew what was unlawful—namely, by the declaration of the law under Act of Parliament. When an offence was created by this or any other Act, it was stated to be an offence under the Act of Parliament; and if a man committed an offence, and was tried for that offence, he could not say that he did not understand it to be an offence, and that he ought to have had an adjudication before he could be held amenable. That was contrary to the whole of our legal procedure, and the only point the hon. Member had made seemed to be that there was a person who was not aware of the object of the Association of which he was a member; and, therefore, he ought to be protected. If the insertion of any words such as "being knowingly a member" would meet the case, he should be happy to adopt that course. It was not intended that every man who was a member of an Association which might contemplate unlawful purposes should be amenable if he could say that he was ignorant of its purposes. Such a man, he thought, ought to be protected.
    DR. COMMINSexplained that what was wanted was that people might know beforehand what was to be or what was not to be the law, and should not be punished for what they did not know to be an offence. Here the difficulty arose as to what was an Association which would bring people within this clause.
    1096
    There was not a single decision or Act of Parliament in force, at present, which contained a provision of what was to be understood, from the point of view of a criminal lawyer; therefore, there was no warning to individuals, who might be punished, of what an Association was which would render them liable to punishment. The term "association" was the widest term in the English language. Walking, or dining, or talking to a man might be called an association, and there was nothing to limit the term in any way. He was not sure whether the hon. Member's Amendment would carry out all that was wanted. The mischief of the section would be seen if this 1st clause or sub-section was compared with the 2nd clause, which defined an illegal meeting. The Home Secretary had not given any answer whatever to the hon. Member for Sligo's question, because every one of the cases the hon. Member put could be held an offence without any straining of the law under this sub-section. A person collecting money for the relief of political prisoners; members of the Ladies' Land League, which sought to relieve evicted families; and persons subscribing to the Prisoners' Aid Fund might be held liable to punishment without straining the law. By considering Clause 7, the Committee would see how iniquitous this provision was. It was provided by Clause 7 that—
    "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published, in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which ho has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. Any person who is present at a meeting prohibited in pursuance of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;"
    and then the 27th clause dealt with unlawful associations for encouraging offences against the Act. Suppose that half-a-dozen or more people formed a committee in any town and held a public meeting, the Lord Lieutenant might consider that dangerous to the public peace and prohibit it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is discussing a clause not before the Committee.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he was pointing out that, taking this unlimited definition in the clause now under consideration with what arose under Clause 27, the mischief of Sub-section (a) would be seen. Take the case of a person on a

    1097
    committee formed to call a public meeting, and the meeting was prohibited, some person knowing nothing about the purpose of the meeting would be guilty of an offence under the Act, and the people who formed the committee to call that meeting would be held liable to prosecution under this section for having called the meeting, and thereby encouraged an offence against the Act. That was the most sweeping provision for ex post facto punishment that could be conceived. There ought to be some limitation, and he did not see any way of limiting the clause, except by giving persons warning by judicial decision as the hon. Member proposed.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, if the Home Secretary would accept the words "who is a member of an Association knowing it to be unlawful," he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment. All he wanted to provide was that if any person who was a member of any Association formed in Ireland without knowing that the tendency of the Association was unlawful, or if, when he learned that, he withdrew from the Association, he should not be punished for the mere fact of having been a member. That was all he wanted, and it seemed to him that that could be met by making the subsection run in this way—"Is a member of an Association knowing the same to be unlawful." Then, after the first decision was given, and after the first person had been convicted for being a member of an unlawful Association, everybody would know that it was unlawful, and would have no excuse for remaining members of it. If they then retired they ought to be protected.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he did not think the proposal of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) quite met the case. Suppose, for instance, that a club in Dublin appointed a committee to secure the election of a Member of Parliament, and suppose that committee was found guilty of corrupt practices, then, under this clause, each member of the club would be liable under the Corrupt Practices Act. The committee must take care that an innocent member of a club, who merely used the club for dining and reading the newspapers, should not come under this Act through the actions of the committee of the club. That was a possible case, and it would be very unfair that as ordinary member
    1098
    of the club should be brought before a magistrate and punished, under this Act, for acts of which he might be perfectly innocent. The words ought to be made so clear that guilty knowledge should be brought home to any such person before he could be indicted.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was of the same opinion as the hon. Member who had just spoken. What was wanted was that the Act should make an Association illegal before membership was made illegal, and that an innocent person should not be drawn into the network of this Act without receiving fair warning. While he opposed every clause of the Bill, he was inclined to think this the worst clause of the whole lot. Every Association of every kind whatever would come under this section, and he took issue altogether with the statement of the Home Secretary, with regard to the Prisoners' Aid Society. That Society would come completely under the Bill. Suppose a man was put into gaol for taking possession of a farm within six months after ejectment. This Society stepped in and gave assistance to that man's wife and family; therefore, they would be assisting in the commission of his crime. Taking possession of a farm was an offence under the Act, and by giving assistance to the family of a man imprisoned for such an offence, the Society would be encouraging the commission of crime. His hon. Friend asked that every Association should not be put down, and that fair warning should be given to members of the Association of proceedings against them for being members. He doubted whether the Amendment would effect that object. If a man was prosecuted for being a member of the Prisoners' Aid Society, the magistrate might say he knew when he entered the Society that it was giving assistance to the families of men who had committed an offence, and he must take it that the man was an intelligent person, and that ignorance of the law was no excuse. He thought his hon. Friend had better stick to the original proposal to insert the words "is, and persists in remaining a member of."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought it was imprudent to use arguments which went far in excess of the proposal submitted to the Committee. The assent of the Committee was invited

    1099
    to the simple proposal to insert language which would prevent any guilty person escaping; and it was not necessary at all, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork seemed to think, that a decision should first be obtained upon the unlawfulness of an Association, because if a man was a member of an unlawful Association, and if it was shown that he was engaged in unlawful acts, his responsibility began before any decision was given. Therefore, he objected to using arguments which were absolutely unnecessary for the point in view. Ho agreed that the language proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was necessary to protect innocent persons; and if that Amendment was accepted, the power to punish a person consciously a member of an Association would be as great as ever if the subsection read—
    "Is a member of an association knowing the same to be unlawful as denned by this Act."
    The Government could proceed against such a person at once, even if no decision had been given.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was difficult in such a case as this to make Amendments on the spot before there had been time to consider the question; and as far as he could see his way at present, he was prepared to add after the word "who," in the first line, the word "knowingly," which would then govern all that followed. In Subsection (d) there were the words, "knowingly takes part in the proceedings of an unlawful association." That was of the same character as knowingly being a member of an unlawful Association, and it seemed to him that the word "knowingly" could be safely inserted. He was prepared to do that; but at the present moment he could not go further.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork was dealing with open Associations like the Land League, which might be or might not be legal, but whose objects were more or less well defined, while probably the Home Secretary was thinking of some secret Associations whoso operations might be unlawful. It might be possible to reconcile the two views, and to carry out the object of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, by saying—
    1100
    "Any member belonging to an open Association shall not be punished until that Association has been declared unlawful."
    A member of an Association whose object was known to be unlawful was himself acting unlawfully; and he thought the Government might draw up an Amendment on Report which might meet the two cases. It would be very hard if a person belonging to a well-defined Association, such as the Land League, whose objects were supposed by a great majority of people to be perfectly lawful, should be punishable. He thought such an Association would be a fair case for a legal decision before a member could be held guilty. He did not say secret Associations existed in Ireland, but there might be some, and in those cases it might be unreasonable to ask for a decision first.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork would do wisely to accept the proposal of the Home Secretary to introduce the word "knowingly," and then, on Report, a further Amendment might be moved. He said this because it was exceedingly difficult to discuss this clause thoroughly until the Committee knew what an unlawful Association was, and that they could not know until they arrived at Clause 27, where unlawful Associations were defined. That definition might be open to certain alterations, and it would depend on such alterations whether it was sufficient to accept the word "knowingly," or whether other words would be necessary.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, it was clear the object of this clause was to put down agitation and bring all Associations within the summary jurisdiction of magistrates, and not under the ordinary law. He assumed that there was no intention to make any offences punishable under this clause which could not be punishable upon indictment for conspiracy. The law defined conspiracy and proscribed the evidence which must be produced. He would suggest that these words should be added to the first line—
    "Every person who is guilty of conspiracy by being a member of an unlawful Association,"
    believing that that would completely meet the difficulty.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the intention of the Home Secretary could only be

    1101
    attained if the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment. If the Amendment were withdrawn they would go back to the beginning of Clause 6.
    MR. R. POWERconsidered that the question which had been raised should be deferred to Report. There was a great difference between the words—
    "Every person who knowingly is a member of an unlawful Association,"
    and—
    "Every person who is a member of an unlawful Association;"
    and he thought that in deciding which proposition they ought to adopt, they should leave it rather in the way which would be favourable to the person likely to be implicated, and which would give him an opportunity of escaping from penalties which he had incurred unconsciously. Under the circumstances, it would be much better to defer the matter to Report, and perhaps, in the meantime, the Home Secretary might see his way to adopt the words suggested.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would have no objection to defer the matter to Report if the Committee considered that that would be the most desirable step to take. There appeared to be a radical difference between a clause which ran in this way—
    "Every person who knowingly is a member of an unlawful Association as defined by this Act,"
    and—
    "Every person who is a member of an Association knowing the same to be unlawful."
    What he wished to ask the Home Secretary was, whether the insertion of the word "knowingly" made it necessary, before a conviction could be made, that the person belonging to the Association should possess the knowledge that the Association was unlawful, supposing there was an absence of any illegal acts upon the part of the person accused? That was the end for which he wished to provide, because it must be remembered that this clause made it a crime for a person to belong to an unlawful Association, although he might not have committed any illegal act himself. The crime consisted in belonging to the Association. A man might belong to an Association in the most formal way; he might be desirous of leaving it when he discovered its illegal character; but. the fact of
    1102
    having belonged to it made him guilty of an offence against this Act. He admitted that it was right that the Home Secretary should have time to consider the effect of the introduction of the word "knowingly" in different parts of the clause; but what he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman was this. Was it his opinion and desire that a person should not be convicted who had not committed any offence against this Act other than that of being a member of an unlawful Association, knowing the Association to be unlawful?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the effect of inserting the word "knowingly" would be that a man must know that the Association he belonged to was unlawful before he would be liable to the punishment provided by the Act; a man must know that he was a member of an Association which had for its object the doing something which was made an offence under the Act. It was not necessary that the man himself must do any illegal act to bring him within the punishment of the Act; the very fact of his being a member of an Association which he knew to be unlawful was sufficient.
    MR. STOREYsaid, the point was not yet clear. Let them suppose that this Act was to apply to England, and that an Association in England ordered a strike in the North, which strike was declared by the magistrates of the district to be illegal, would it be fair that a man in London should be punished for being a member of an Association which, in the North of England, had done an illegal act?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, a man would not be liable under this clause if he was a member of an Association which did an illegal act, unless he knew that the Association was formed and existed for the purpose of doing an illegal act. If the word "knowingly" were inserted the clause could only be construed in that way.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very sorry to press the point, but it was one of great importance, and it was quite proper the Committee should understand what the Home Secretary meant in reference to it before they passed it by. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that a person could not be convicted unless he knew what the objects

    1103
    of the Association he belonged to were, and that if the objects of the Association were unlawful he could be convicted. But a person might know what the objects of his Association were, and yet not know they were unlawful. That was precisely the difficulty he (Mr. Parnell) felt in this matter. He was perfectly willing to leave it in the way just stated by the Solicitor General for England— namely, that a person should know that the objects of the Association were unlawful. It did not satisfy him, however, that a person should merely know that he was a member of an Association the objects of which were unlawful. The two things did not necessarily follow. A person might be, and very probably would be, before decisions were given under the Act, a member of an Association the objects of which were unlawful without his knowing they were unlawful. He did not wish to protect a person for one moment when that person knew that the objects of the Association to which he belonged were unlawful; and if the insertion of the word "knowingly" was only intended to strike at those who had really a guilty knowledge he would be perfectly satisfied.
    MR. STOREYsaid, the Solicitor General had not understood the point. The objects of an Association might be legal, but its operations might be pronounced to be illegal. Under this Bill a man might be put in gaol for six months for being a member of an Association whose objects were perfectly legal, but one of whose operations in a certain part of the country had been pronounced by two magistrates to be illegal. That could not be what the Home Secretary intended, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would so modify the clause that no man should be punished for being a member of an Association unless the Association was known to him to be illegal. He would suggest that the clause should run—
    "Every person who is a member of an Association, as defined by this Act, which has been declared to be unlawful; or solicits or receives or pays any money for the use of such an unlawful Association; or uses any badge, &c. of such an unlawful Association; or takes part in the proceedings of such an unlawful assembly shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
    Such words would provide that the Association must first of all be decided and declared to be illegal before a member
    1104
    of it could be punished. In this matter the Government were going much further in Ireland than they dared venture in England.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was quite impossible to have the decision and declaration which the hon. Member wished. An Association could only be decided and declared to be unlawful by proceedings against some individual. Ho (Sir William Harcourt) was very anxious to meet the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) if he could. A man must know that the object or the action of the Association to which he belonged was unlawful, and he would have that knowledge if he knew that the acts or the objects of the Association were such as were forbidden in this Act. The mere passing of this Act would be notice to a man that the doing or the contemplation of such acts would be unlawful. It was impossible to arrive at the working of a man's mind, except by the character of the acts contemplated or done by the Association; and an Association would bo held to be unlawful if the end which it sought, or the means which it employed, were unlawful within the meaning of the Act. He had consulted with his learned Friends near him, and, at all events for the present, he could not propose to the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) to do more than he had already proposed to do—namely, to insert the word "knowingly."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that a little while ago he instanced the case of the Ladies' Land League. Every member of that League knew very well that one of its objects was to assist evicted families with grants of money. It might be a question, until there was a judicial decision, whether that object was lawful; because, suppose that either before or after the receipt of a grant of money any member of the evicted family were to take forcible possession of the house from which he had been evicted, a judicial tribunal might hold that the grant of money was an encouragement to crime. Until the Home Secretary said such grants were lawful, it would be quite impossible for the Ladies' Land League to know whether they were lawful or unlawful.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought that most hon. Gentlemen were members of Associations having

    1105
    objects of that character. One of the most useful Associations in this country, and one which he, in his Office, did all in his power to encourage, was the Prisoners' Aid Society. Who had ever thought that because people aided a prisoner and his family they were encouraging crime? That was the very point the hon. Member had put. No one could form such an idea as that.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just said that anyone convicted under this clause must know that the objects of the Association were unlawful within the meaning of this Act. What objection, therefore, could there be to the insertion of the words "knowing the same to be unlawful?"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that that is not the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment under discussion is that the words "and persists in remaining" should be inserted.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, probably the best thing he could do would be to accept the statement of the Home Secretary—namely, that he would insert "knowingly" now, and consider the matter further between this and Report. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved to insert, in page4, line 1, after "who," the word "knowingly."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. REDMONDmoved, in page 4, line 2, to leave out "as defined by this Act." His object in moving this Amendment was to raise the whole question of unlawful Associations as defined by this Act. Turning to Clause 27 of the Bill, "unlawful association" was defined to be any Association formed for the purpose of carrying on crime. Crime was defined to be any offence against this Act, and amongst the offences against this Act there were some the determination of which was to be left to the discretion of Resident Magistrates. Intimidation was a crime under the Act, and it had been held in some cases that the erection of huts for evicted tenants by the Ladies' Land League was intimidation. He presumed that the Ladies' Land League would be considered an unlawful Association. He did not know
    1106
    whether this was exactly the right time to raise a discussion on the words "unlawful Associations as defined by this Act," or whether he ought to wait until a later period of the Committee. His object was to raise the point of unlawful Associations on the first occasion that it appeared in the Bill, and for that purpose he would move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out the words "as defined by this Act."—(Mr. Redmond.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would postpone the Amendment until they came to the 27th clause. If the Amendment were carried the definition of unlawful Associations would be left quite open.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would remember what the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) had said with reference to the Ladies' Land League— namely, that in some cases it had been held that the action of the League amounted to intimidation. If, under this Act, the erection of huts for evicted families would be held to be illegal, the contention of the hon. Member that an Association for the erection of huts would be unlawful could not be disputed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would therefore see the very great necessity there was for a clear and precise definition. He had no desire to prolong the discussion; but he would point out that it was the duty of the Committee to bear in mind what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—
    "In this Bill it was not intended to give a new definition of a crime well known at Common Law…If they were introducing a new offence, they might ho justly required to give a definition; hut, as a matter of fact, they were dealing with a well-known offence."
    The case had been put to the Committee; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Redmond) showed the necessity of giving a precise definition. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had very frequently referred to the ingenuity of

    1107
    Irishmen, and he had said—"If you give a definition of crime, the people will employ their ingenuity to find a form of crime not defined." The Committee and the Government ought to be well satisfied if the Irish ingenuity was so exercised as to keep the people within the law; and the Government ought, now that they were creating new offences, to tell the people precisely what the offence was, so that the people could avoid committing it.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the Bill would be limited to unlawful Associations in actual existence at the time the Act passed into law?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not intended that the clause should be retrospective.
    MR. NEWDEGATEbegged to ask the Home Secretary if permission would be given carte blanche, after the passing of the Act, for the formation of any Associations, however illegal?
    SIR WILLIAM HAROOURTsaid, he did not know why the hon. Gentleman should address such a question to him. There was nothing in the Bill to give the hon. Member any such impression as he seemed to possess.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, that after what had fallen from the Home Secretary he would withdraw his Amendment, postponing the consideration of this very important question until they arrived at the clause which defined unlawful Associations. He presumed that as they had to meet again at 12 o'clock, there would be no objection to report Progress now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped hon. Members would allow the Committee to finish this clause. He was going to move the omission of the latter lines of Sub-section (d); and if hon. Members would look at the page of Amendments, they would find there were really no important questions raised in the clause.
    MR. HEALYsuggested they should go on until they reached some point of difficulty.
    MR. GILLdesired to move an Amendment to Sub-section (5), which he wished should read thus—
    "Solicits or receives or pays any money for the use of an Association after it has been declared to be unlawful as defined by this Act."
    1108
    His reason for proposing this Amendment was that the membership of very many Associations was formed by paying a yearly subscription at the beginning of the year. If a person paid a yearly subscription in January, he would be a member of the Association until the end of the year. Perhaps in March the Association might be declared to be unlawful, and the man might resolve to have nothing more to do with it. As, however, he had paid his subscription in January, he would still be a member of the Association, and he would have no means of disassociating himself from it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say he would consider, between this and Report, whether he could not propose an Amendment having for its object the protection of men who had no desire to belong to Associations after they had been declared unlawful, he (Mr. Gill) would not now press his Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the insertion of the word "knowingly" would meet the case the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. If, on consideration, they found this would not be the case, they would take care the clause should be amended in the direction desired.
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 4, line 6, after "ticket," leave out "indicating connection with," and insert "showing that the person using same is a member of." The Government had proposed this clause with the intention of using it against secret societies. He presumed that the Government imagined that members of secret societies used some badge, possibly in their hats, to denote they were members of such societies. He feared the Government had made some mistake in introducing this sub-section. What was the meaning of the words "using any badge or ticket?" A man might have a Land League ticket, the Land League was proclaimed, the ticket remained in his house. The police were to have largo powers of search, and if they discovered such a ticket they might hold that the person to whom it belonged belonged to an unlawful society. To guard against such a contingency, he moved this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 6, after the word "ticket," to leave out the words "indicating connection

    1109
    with, "and insert the words" showing that the person using same is a member of."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not see any objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTproposed to leave out the word "knowingly" at the beginning of line 8, inasmuch as the word had been inserted at the commencement of the clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he proposed, in lines 10 and 11, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line to the end, as those words seemed to be unnecessary, because taking part in the proceedings of any unlawful Association was defined by the Bill. The words proposed to be omitted were these—
    "Or of any meeting for the purpose of promoting the purposes of any such unlawful Association, or any of those purposes."
    The use of these words seemed to him to be superfluous, and he therefore proposed that they should be struck out of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 10 and 11, to leave out all the words after"thereof"to"shall."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, before the clause was agreed to he should like to put a question to Her Majesty's Government. If Sub-section (a) of the clause were carried out in its integrity, the consequence would be that the members of unlawful Associations would die out, and there would be no necessity for the other sub-sections which followed—such, for instance, as soliciting or paying money, using any badge or ticket, and BO on. He was at a loss to understand why all this elaborate, complicated, and
    1110
    useless machinery could not be omitted. Would it not be better to omit these sub-sections?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman might give an undertaking to cut out the subsections mentioned by his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) on the Report. They certainly seemed to be absurd, and would be of no use under any circumstances.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the suggestion was one that was very well worth attention.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked whether the Proviso of which he had given Notice for insertion at the end of the clause could not be moved then?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause would come up afterwards.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he proposed to deal with the matter in the same clause as that which he had already mentioned.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 154; Noes 29: Majority 125. — (Div. List, No. 136.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    MR. HEALYwished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the House might expect the Amendments to be brought forward by the Government to be proposed on the following day; and, if not, if the Government would inform the House when they would be brought up? He had understood from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they would be brought up as soon as possible.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not in his place at the present moment; but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that no time will be lost in making progress with the Bill.

  EJECTMENTS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) BILL.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the suspension of Ejectments in Ireland.
  MR. WARTON: I object.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion cannot be taken now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will put it on the Paper for to-morrow, and I will take the present opportunity of giving Notice that I will then ask the hon. and learned Member for Bridport if he will consent to take off his block?

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH)—"GURNEY v. BRADLAUGH."

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. LABOUCHEREbegged to move the following Resolution: —
    "That leave be given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice with the paper writing subscribed by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh at the Table of the House on the 21st February last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House of the same date."
    He said, he had not anticipated that it would have been necessary for him to make any statement in submitting this Resolution, because he took it to be the usual practice in all these cases that the Papers asked for were given as a matter of course, more particularly when the authorities of the House did not interpose any objection; but, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given Notice of his intention to oppose the Motion, it would be necessary for him (Mr. Labouchere) to explain to the House, in as few words as possible, what was his object in submitting it. It was obvious that Mr. Bradlaugh either did or did not take the Oath at the Table of the House. After either taking the Oath or not taking it, Mr. Bradlaugh sat in that House, and an action was brought against him by Mr. Gurney for penalties. On Friday last he (Mr. Labouchere) presented a Petition on the subject, and on Monday he put on the Paper the Resolution he had now risen to move. On that occasion the Motion was put down for hearing
    1112
    during the time devoted to Private Business; but the hon. Member for North Warwickshire objected to its being taken, and it was not proceeded with. It was then put down at the end of the Public Business, and again the hon. Member for North Warwickshire objected. He (Mr. Labouchere) had received a letter that day (Tuesday) from the solicitor to Mr. Bradlaugh, in which he was informed that it was absolutely necessary for Mr. Bradlaugh's case that he should obtain the Papers now asked for, and that it was very possible that the case would come on within a fortnight. Therefore, it was desirable that Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor should obtain the Papers as soon as possible. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed that the objection of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire was based on the idea that the Courts had decided that the present action was a collusive action. With the permission of the House, he would read what Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor said in reference to the matter, and he thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would then perceive that he was entirely under an error. Mr. Bradlaugh's solicitor said—
    "In reply to your note, the action was not dismissed as collusive. The Judges said they believed the pleadings were so drawn as not to raise the real facts, and there and then they declined to try the case on demurrer. They required the pleadings to be amended, so that the whole of the facts might be raised, and the action tried by a jury. The amendments have been made, and the case is down for trial, and it is with a view to that trial that the documents are required."
    He (Mr. Labouchere) had now explained the object of his Motion, which he now begged leave to submit for the acceptance of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, with the paper writing subscribed by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh at the Table of the House on the 21st February-last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House of the same date."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot concur in the very limited view of the scope of this Motion, which the hon. Member for Northampton has presented to the House. I may at once declare that I deny the assertion that the action promoted in the Court of

    1113
    Queen'sBench—"Gurney v. Bradlaugh," on the 15th of May—the renewal of which is contemplated by this Motion, is not collusive, and I do so upon the authority of Mr. Justice Manisty; I assert that the action to which the Motion refers is collusive. I will read the last words which were uttered by the learned Judge in dismissing this case. They are taken from the shorthand writer's notes, and I think that they dispose of this part of the subject.
    "Mr. Justice Manisty: There is no controversy between you and the defendant?"
    "Mr. Bradlaugh: No, my lord."
    "Mr. Justice Manisty: Then there is an end to the case. Of itself, that would prevent our hearing it."
    These were the concluding words of Mr. Justice Manisty when he dismissed the case; and he dismissed the case because Mr. Bradlaugh was obliged to acknowledge that there was no controversy between the plaintiff and Gurney, and himself, the defendant. I think, Sir, that no hon. Member will now dispute what was the opinion of Mr. Justice Manisty on the 15th of May, 1882, when he spoke as the mouthpiece of the Court of Queen's Bench. From the first, when this case of "Gurney v. Bradlaugh" was brought before them, both the learned Judges of that Court stated that the pleadings were suspiciously imperfect. It was this that led them—both Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Watkin Williams—to the conclusion that the case was collusive; and I have read to the House the concluding words of the senior Judge, expressing their decision that the case was manifestly collusive, that conclusion being founded upon the defective nature of the pleadings, and at last upon the acknowledgment of Mr. Bradlaugh himself that there was no controversy between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Judges in consequence refused to hear the case. The suit rejected on the 15th of May and the suit contemplated by the Motion before the House are identical—the plaintiff and the defendant the same persons. Lot me now call the attention of the House to the avowed purpose of Mr. Bradlaugh in attempting to bring under the cognizance and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench the Resolution by which this House condemned his conduct, when, on the 21st of February, uncalled by
    1114
    you, Sir, he came to that Table, produced a paper and a volume of some kind, I suppose it was a Testament, from his pocket, read the paper, kissed the book, threw the paper and the book on the Table, and then declared that he had duly taken the Oath. After that he was ordered to withdraw from the House; but, notwithstanding that order, he voted, and his vote was reported at the Table by one of the Tellers, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Rowland Winn). Now, the object of this action is to raise the question whether that vote was valid, and for the further purpose of bringing the Resolution adopted by this House on the 22nd of February under the cognizance and under the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, in manifest derogation of the position and rights of this House, which, as part of the High Court of Parliament, is superior to, and exempt from, the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, especially as to the regulation of its internal proceedings, except so far as the House may think fit voluntarily to submit any part of its proceedings to the Courts. This the House has not done in the case of its Resolution of the 22nd of February last, which stands as follows:—
    "Resolved, that Charles Bradlaugh, Esquire, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, having disobeyed the Orders of the House, and having, in contempt of the authority of this House, irregularly and contumaciously pretended to take and subscribe the Oath required by Law, be expelled this House."
    Immediately after this Resolution was adopted, the House adopted a Resolution ordering a new Writ to be issued for the election of a Member for the borough of Northampton. Mr. Bradlaugh has also avowed that he induced this fictitious complainant, Gurney, who, I believe, is a person resident in or near Northampton, to bring this pretended action, in order to give him the advantage of appearing as defendant. Is it not manifest, Sir, that this is a collusive action—a fictitious action? And, moreover, that it was brought for the purpose of bringing within the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench a Resolution of this House regulating its own internal state and proceedings, with no permission from the House itself. I would recall to the memory of the House that the Resolution of July the 1st,

    1115
    1880, under which Mr. Bradlaugh sat for some time in this House, concluded with the words "subject to any liability by Statute." The Resolution is to the following effect: —
    "That every person returned as a Member of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time being by Law permitted to make a solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath, shall henceforth (notwithstanding so much of the Resolution adopted by this House on the 22nd day of June last as relates to Affirmation) be permitted, without question, to make and subscribe a solemn Affirmation in the form prescribed by 'The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866,' as altered by 'The Promissory Oaths Act, 1868,' subject to any liability by statute."
    The Courts have fully considered the matter, which was thus virtually referred to them by the House under the words, at the end of this Resolution, which I have quoted, and the Courts have hitherto, up to the Court of Appeal, decided that Mr. Bradlaugh had no right to sit in this House after taking the Affirmation appointed for Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists as the equivalent to the Oath; and it is a very curious fact that the Court of Appeal decided finally —thus far the Courts have decided— that Mr. Bradlaugh has no right to sit and vote in this House This has been the course of the case of "Clarke v. Bradlaugh;" and yet Mr. Bradlaugh has carried that case to the House of Lords. It appears to me, Sir, that the certainty that ho would be defeated in the House of Lords impressed itself on Mr. Bradlaugh's mind, and that he then adopted the violent alternative, which led the House to pass the Resolution of the 22nd of February, to the effect I have quoted, on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). The House declared, by an enormous majority, that the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh, in presenting himself at the Table of the House, uncalled by you, Sir, and unattended by the Clerk, when you were not sitting in the Chair, but standing in front of the Chair, and were reproving him for his conduct, was irregular and contumacious on the 22nd of February. Mr. Bradlaugh appears to have changed tactics. The decision of the Court of Appeal in "Clarke v. Bradlaugh" was given on the 23rd. At first Mr. Bradlaugh endeavoured, by this novel proceeding, to procure from you, Sir, some assent to the pleadings which the Court
    1116
    of Queen's Bench has declared to be defective and of a suspicious character, and I will read the reply to that attempt, which was written by your direction. That reply was addressed to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, Attorneys, of Ely Place, and is dated the 28th of March, 1882, and in the following terms:—
    "I am directed by the Speaker to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, and of the copies inclosed therewith of the pleadings in an action, recently commenced, between Joseph Gurney, Plaintiff, and Charles Bradlaugh, Defendant. In reply, I have to inform you that the Speaker sees no reason for his interfering in any way with the proceedings now pending in connection with the suit in question."
    I trust that the House will, on the present occasion, follow the example of your caution and of your wisdom, and not involve itself in any way in this suit. The request is, that an Officer of this House shall attend the Court of Queen's Bench with the book and the paper which, on the 22nd of February, Mr. Bradlaugh either threw or left upon the Table of the House. In the case of an individual, Sir, there is no choice but of compliance with a subpoena; but that is a totally different case from that of this House. This House cannot be compelled to send its Officers to any Court. This can only be done by an act of judgment and volition on the part of this House; and if the House were to consent to send any of its Officers to attend this fictitious suit, it would be held that the House had, to a certain extent, sanctioned that suit. I submit, then, that your caution was not at all over-strained in this case, and that by all its precedents in like (if there be any) matters the House is bound to inquire into the circumstances of the case coming on for trial, before it commits itself by an act of judgment to ordering its Officers to attend the Court. I am very reluctant to detain the House further; but I felt bound to have this case watched, as having taken an active part in support of Mr. Clarke in his suit against Mr. Bradlaugh, I wanted to know why Mr. Bradlaugh had shifted his ground. It is obvious enough, in my opinion, that he has little hope of defeating Mr. Clarke's action. He has shifted his ground, and is obliged to set up a fictitious plaintiff in order to get this novel action before the Courts. It is a collusive action, and condemned as such by

    1117
    the Court of Queen's Bench, which has refused to hear it on that ground. What does Mr. Bradlaugh propose to do now? With the permission of the House, I will read a paragraph from what appears in The National Reformer, which is acknowledged to be Mr. Bradlaugh's own paper. In the number of that paper of June 4 I find this paragraph under the head"Jottings"—
    "Although there is no disputed facts to he ascertained in Gurney v. Bradlaugh, this record has, in consequence of the decision of Justices Manisty and Watkin Williams, now been amended, and the suit will he set down for trial. After the trial it will again be brought before the Divisional Court for decision on the points of law as to the validity of the Oath taken, and of the Resolution of the House forbidding the taking. If the Divisional Court should then again refuse to hear argument, I shall appeal to the Court of Appeal, and if necessary to the House of Lords."
    I might have read Mr. Bradlaugh's own words before the Court of Queen's Bench in support of the first statement with respect to this case which I made; but I am 1oth to detain the House longer. I have given that which is, in truth, a summary of the facts. It does appear to me, Sir, that if this House intends to maintain its independence and sole authority over its internal proceedings it must not depart from its original Rule, that it will not submit its proceedings, Standing Orders, or Resolutions, especially those referring to its own organization, to any Court whatever, unless it has been proved that there is some justifiable necessity for taking that course. The object of Mr. Bradlaugh is to impugn the authority of this House in regulating its own proceedings, and the means he has adopted of doing this is a collusive action. I trust that the House will have too much regard for its own dignity to take any step until it is fully assured by the hon. and learned Attorney General, or by some competent authority, that he is cognizant of the circumstances of the case, that the case for trial is real, and that there is some necessity, some justifiable necessity, for the appearance of an Officer of this House in the Court of Law. I therefore oppose this Motion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the subject of the Resolution submitted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton was, as a matter of course, one that was
    1118
    entirely in the hands of the House, and it was with the House that the decision must rest. He, therefore, assured the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that he was not endeavouring to guide or influence that decision in any way beyond what might be the effect of his own personal opinion on the matter. The statement he had to make on the subject before the House would be brief. It would be sufficient for his purpose to state that there were certain documents in the possession of the Officers of that House, and that those documents were deemed to be material to the hearing of the case to which the Resolution referred. The House would see that the Petition for leave to produce these documents was somewhat in substitution for the ordinary subpoena, which would be served on a subject whose attendance was required at the hearing of a suit; but here it was asked that an Officer of that House should attend with the Papers required. Under ordinary circumstances, the prayer of the Petition would, without doubt, be granted, and the House would permit its Officer to appear; and, without in any way acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Court or sanctioning any of its proceedings, that Officer would produce the documents thought to be necessary. The House had, therefore, to ask itself whether anything had been brought under its notice to induce it to depart from what was the ordinary course? It was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire that this action was a collusive action. These words, in the mind of a lawyer, meant a great deal; but he would ask the House to see whether this was really the case. It was well known that many suits which were brought before the Courts for the purpose of trying certain legal questions were commenced as friendly suits. This was frequently the case in the trial of questions affecting the settlement of wills, or the institution of suits for the purpose of determining matters of right in connection with real property, or the right to a water-course, or any other right on which legal questions such as these were constantly made the subject of friendly suits for the purpose of obtaining the decision of a Court of Law. But a collusive suit was a corrupt suit—a suit whereby the persons interested attempted to obtain some

    1119
    advantage against third persons. But, as far as he was able to gather from the statements that had been made in reference to the case under consideration, he assumed it to be the fact that the plaintiff in this action, being a friend of the defendant, had instituted a suit for the purpose of determining, as far as it could be determined, a question in which one of the parties had an interest; and this was a perfectly rightful course to take. But that such a proceeding could bind that House in any way was a very different thing. He was not suggesting that this could be the case; but only that the parties, who were friendly to each other, and who had one and the same object in view, had chosen to institute a suit, and so to shape the pleadings that the question at issue might be duly determined. It was an action for penalties—an action which one subject had a right to try, whether it was a hostile or a friendly suit. He would, however, again guard himself by saying that, in what he was saying, he had no wish to bind the House as to the decision to which it might come. If the House agreed to the prayer of the Petition, what was it it would do in allowing its Officer to appear with the Papers asked for when the suit was tried? It would be giving no countenance to the suit by taking such a step. If the suit had been wrongly instituted, and if it were held to be so wrongly instituted that the Judges thought they ought not to try the case, they would say so when the hearing took place. If the hearing were a wrong hearing, the Judges would so determine; if it were right that it should be heard, it would be heard; and the House, in directing its Officer to appear and produce the documents required in Court, would only be doing what it would do in any ordinary case. If the case were, as had been stated, a collusive case, the Judges, who would have the issue before them, would so determine; and it was for them to decide, and not for that House, whether the case was collusive. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had stated that the Judges had decided that the case was collusive. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would excuse him for saying that ho was afraid he had been mistaken as to a legal technicality, though he (the Attorney General) was not anxious to enter into the matter.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been assured that the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the action was so collusive that they would not hear the case.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the case had come before the Judges on a demurrer, and the Judges had said that the parties had not raised the proper issue; and they had suggested that the issue should be raised in another way. The Judges having so determined, the matter was now coming on for trial. But that House could have no regard to these matters, and it had no proof of them before it; nor was it within the competence, nor suitable to the dignity of the House, to endeavour to try whether the action was a collusive action or not. He would give the House an instance. In the case of "Miller v. Salomons," the suit was brought as a friendly suit by a friend of Alderman Salomons, for the purpose of trying a somewhat similar question to that raised in the case under consideration. That was a trial to determine the right to sit in that House; but what was done in that case did not in any way control the conduct of the House. Supposing that in that case there had been an application for documents in the possession of the House, what would that House have said? Would it have said—"We decline to afford the person bringing the action the opportunity of having the documents asked for produced in Court?" If the House, in the present instance, refused on the grounds stated to agree to this Motion, it would have, in every other case that might arise, to determine whether, in its opinion, the action had been rightly brought, or was a friendly action. Ho would ask the House what evidence it had before it that this was a collusive action? The House was not the tribunal to determine these matters. If there was to be inquiry as to collusion between the parties, or as to the friendliness of the action, the tribunal to conduct, and the method by which to conduct it, was the Court, else the House ran the risk, which ho was not willing it should run, of bringing itself into conflict with the Court when a subpoena was issued for the production of these documents. It was a conflict into which it was undesirable for the House to enter. He

    1121
    hoped hon. Members would believe that he was not desirous of entering into controversial topics; but he wished to regard the suit as one brought by A or B, and not against Mr. Bradlaugh, in which it would be no part of the duty of the House to decide how far there was collusion.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwas unwilling to interrupt the Attorney General; but it happened that he had been personally cognizant of the case of "Miller v. Salomons;" and he begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that that case was heard by leave of the Court after Mr. (now Baron) Bramwell and Mr. Channel had corrected the pleadings.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would take that instance from the hon. Member. It was a friendly suit under similar circumstances, and if the House did not allow these documents to go, would it not be said that because the majority of the House had been in conflict with Mr. Bradlaugh they would not allow that to him which had been done in the case of an ordinary suitor? Was it not more consonant with the feeling of justice? Was it not well to avoid giving the occasion for a further grievance by refusing this to Mr. Bradlaugh because of the decision of a majority of the House, of which he was not now making any complaint? He was sure the House would not allow its feelings to enter into the consideration of the case, and he believed it would be for the dignity of the House to pass this Motion.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDconfessed there was a great deal in what had been said by the Attorney General, and he thought what had been said might prevail with the House if he had satisfied the House that this was a real action at all. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) observed in the letter which had been read by the hon. Member for Northampton at the commencement of these proceedings that it was suggested that the learned Judges dismissed the action because the pleadings were imperfectly framed. It was all very well to say that, and it was a legal technicality which he would not go into; but it raised the whole question whether, on the one hand, this action was a farce—a burlesque that should not be permitted to go on; or whether it was a real substantial action,
    1122
    in which latter case he would quite agree if that could be established. Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed that which any other suitor would be allowed. He would point out to hon. Members, not of the Legal Profession, that anyone could issue a writ and sue anyone else; but if it afterwards turned out, as here, that Mr. Bradlaugh procured some friend to issue a writ against himself, that was not an action at all. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented]. He saw that the Attorney General made a gesture of dissent; but he knew a case not very long ago when the Court of Appeal decided this very point, that it was not a real action at all.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he knew the case which his hon. and learned Friend had in his mind; but he was not quite correct. What the Court held was that a friendly action did not prevent a succeeding action.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the Court decided that there was no action at all, and no formal judgment, though the parties called themselves plaintiff and defendant. If there was a bargain between them they were not really plaintiff and defendant, and the Court would not entertain such suits. He would not say that such was the case in the present suit; but he certainly thought that before the House was asked to come to a decision hon. Members should have before them a copy of the shorthand writer's notes of the statements upon which the Court of Queen's Bench determined. What the Court had determined, he understood—for he had not read the document quoted from by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—was that they declined to hear the case upon the statement of facts the parties had thought proper to put before the Court, for the Court did not believe this was a real action, but a colourable performance in which parties were masking as plaintiff and defendant, whereas there were no real plaintiff and defendant; for this reason, the Court declined to sit in judgment. This was a mere demurrer, the Attorney General said; but if that was the case there was no traverse on the record as there would have been, and judgment would have been given under ordinary circumstances. Mr. Justice Manisty began by saying—"I decline to hear this case; "and Mr.

    1123
    Watkin Williams said—"I prefer that it should be postponed until I am satisfied there is a real case of action." That was the language of the learned Judges; they considered it a sham action, and now the House was asked to make itself a party to this farce of trying a case in which there was no real plaintiff, and no real defendant. If this was the true condition of things, then the House should refuse to make itself a party to such a farce, and it was not consonant with the dignity of the House to allow its Officer to appear in support of such a collusion. If this was a true complaint the House should refuse the Motion. He did not know whether it had been established to the satisfaction of hon. Members, for probably few of them had seen the shorthand winter's notes; and he would suggest that the debate be adjourned, and that, in the meantime, the notes of the Judges' decisions should be presented to the House, for the House to form its judgment. If, in view of that decision, the House should come to the conclusion that this was no real suit, then he did not think the House would be consulting its own dignity in aiding a suit which, on that hypothesis, would be a solemn farce. He must say a word upon what the Attorney General had said as to the right of a suitor to bring any action. He entirely denied that any suitor had a right to bring a collusive suit, and learned Judges had more than once declined to entertain such actions brought for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of the Court. As they had said, they appeared to try real actions and real causes of complaint; they did not sit for the purpose of giving an opinion in the form of deciding an action; and he must, therefore, protest against that which the Attorney General put forward as an absolute proposition, that anyone had a right to bring an action for the purpose of getting an opinion on a point of law. That view had been repudiated by Judges, and the House would do well to pause before it came to the conclusion that it should interfere, until it was found that this was a real action by a plaintiff to recover real penalties from a defendant, and that these terms were not masks assumed for another purpose. It would be much against the dignity of the House to aid and assist in any such performance.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should like to know what the Attorney General meant when ho said so modestly that he did not seek to guide the House? Were hon. Members free to vote as they would, or were hon. Members opposite to be influenced by the Government Whips? When the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to draw a parallel between this sham action and a friendly action, he somewhat misled the House. Friendly suits were well known in the Court of Chancery, when members of a family had conflicting ideas of the right to property; but these rights were real; and the parties might, if they chose, pursue their rights in a hostile manner; but, by arrangement, the suit was arranged— perhaps by the same solicitor—on either side, and the Judges could see at once that it was a real action, although the suit was called a friendly one. But in this case there was no real action, but an impudent defiance of the House on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh, in the same spirit with which he came to the Table and insulted the House. In the same spirit he carried on the insult now, and he would even prostitute the Judges, if he could, to be a party to his attack. As he had attempted to get into the House before, so he would make the attempt again.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, so far as he understood the argument of the Attorney General, it came to this—that the House had not before it any real facts upon which to proceed; and he said, in effect, when certain allegations were made—Why not assent to the motion of the hon. Member for Northampton? But the House had no proof as to the position of the question, and, indeed, was absolutely ignorant on the subject. Most hon. Members, perhaps, had read a report in the daily newspapers; but beyond that the House knew nothing. Lawyers had expressed opinions on both sides, and it seemed to him that the only proper way to arrive at a determination was to have the proper documents before them on which to form a judgment. He referred to the Judgments delivered by the high judicial authorities in the suit of "Gurney v. Bradlaugh." He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate, intending, should the House accept that Motion, to follow it up by moving for the production of copies of the Judgments

    1125
    delivered in the suit of "Gurney v. Bradlaugh."
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    The House divided: —Ayes 65; Noes 85: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, this attempt on the part of the Prime Minister to institute a new treaty with the hon. Member for Northampton was so exceedingly inconvenient that it should not be agreed to by the House, and he therefore begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Lord Claud Hamilton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the House would be disposed to take a practical view of the question. The case stood for immediate trial; and if the House proceeded to an adjournment, the effect would be that by the operation of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule the debate would be prevented from being resumed, and the result would be to precipitate that contest which he was anxious the House should avoid. It was only fair to the House that they should now be allowed to say whether the Motion should be accepted or not.
    MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was, in his opinion, the very way to produce— an obvious means for producing'—a conflict between the House and the Law Courts. The practice of the House had always hitherto been—especially with respect to causes touching its own proceedings—to refuse to allow an Officer of the House to attend a Court, unless the House was cognizant of the merits of the case; and if the House now consented to the Resolution, that, of itself, would constitute a departure from what had been the invariable rule and practice of the House. He was convinced that the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton tended to embroil the House with the Courts of Law.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, it was plain that the Conservative Party were resolved on a policy of Obstruction. They
    1126
    had taken the sense of the House, and immediately made another Adjournment Motion. It was on a piece with the proceeding which they had adopted early in the evening, when Notice was given of the unusual course of blocking the first reading of a Bill—the Ejectments Suspension (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought it was desirable that the House should not take another division on adjournment. The Motion itself, no doubt, contained a difficult legal and technical point, and, so far as he was concerned, he could not support it; but as the House had agreed to the original Motion it was not wise to again divide on what would not be a fair test as to the real feeling of the House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) had stated that in consequence of some individual Member of the Conservative Party blocking some Bill—the Ejectments Suspension Bill for Ireland — that, therefore, he would take every opportunity to oppose anything brought forward by Conservatives.
    COLONEL NOLANrose to explain.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member for Louth to confine himself to the Question before the House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, then, as an Irish Homo Rule Member, he should take every opportunity of voting against any Bill or Motion brought forward by a coercive Liberal Party.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he viewed with suspicion anything that emanated from the hon. Member for Northampton; but, at the same time, after the appeal of the Attorney General, he would not stand in the way of the House, but would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, it was the opinion of those who voted in the minority on the last division that they were not in a position to say what was the view which would be taken by the Judges as to this action, and that they ought not to support the Motion; but now that they had been beaten it was better for the minority to let the original Motion pass without voting upon it.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That leave he given to the proper Officer of this House to attend the Queen's

    1127
    Bench Division of the High Court of Justice with the paper writing subscribed by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh at the Table of the House on the 21st February last, and the copy of the New Testament named in the Journals of the House of the same date.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.