Commons Sitting of 15 June 1882

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—North London Suburban Tramway*; Swindon, Marlborough, and Andover Railway*,and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Surrey Trial of Causes*[204]; Real and Personal Estate (Accumulation of Income)*[205]; Cruelty to Animals*[206]; Ancient Monuments*[207].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [176].
Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Twelfth Night]; Vagrancy (re-comm.)*[199]—R.P.
Report—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11)*[186].

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  MR. M'COAN: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in sending the troops now said to have been telegraphed for by the Khedive
  1226
  and Dervish Pasha, the Sultan will do so as Sovereign of Egypt or as mandatory of the European Powers; and, in either case, whether any and what guarantee has been taken by the Powers that the intervention thus made by the Porte shall be strictly limited to, and cease with, the suppression of the present revolutionary movement?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I think it only courteous to the hon. Member to say that I shall not be able to answer the Question. It is, no doubt, an extremely interesting Question, but I shall be quite unable to answer it.
  MR. BOURKE: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Prime Minister, Whether His Majesty the Sultan has shown any indisposition to take those measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested to him for the restoration of order in Egypt, and to make good the authority of the Khedive; whether he will state the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to press the Sultan to consent to a Conference; and whether Her Majesty's Government will join in any demand the Powers may make upon the Sultan to act as their mandatory instead of as Sovereign of Egypt?
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the officers and men of Her Majesty's ship Superb who were killed in the recent outbreak were buried at sea, and why they were not buried at Alexandria; whether Her Majesty's Government have warned British subjects at Cairo, whose safety now depends upon Arabi Pasha, that they had better leave Egypt; and what arrangements have been made to receive the large number of European refugees now at Alexandria on board the ships of the fleet?

QUESTIONS.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—MURDER OF MR. OGLE.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Greek Government have yet instituted the long promised inquiry into the murder of Mr. Ogle; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Go-

  1227
  vernment will use their best endeavours to secure the earliest possible investigation of the case, and the presence thereat of a representative of this country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Minister at Athens telegraphed on the 10th instant that the preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Ogle's death had been actively carried out, and that the Greek Government wore now prepared to proceed to an investigation at Vole, at which a British Representative would attend. Mr. Merlin, British Consul at the Pircous, will accordingly be present at the inquiry, which will be proceeded with as soon as possible.

  DEBTORS' (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1880—KENNETH MACKENZIE, A BANKRUPT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the deposition of the bankrupt, Kenneth Mackenzie, examined at Dingwall, in which he deponed that he was indebted to an amount exceeding two hundred pounds, but had no books or accounts, and that such books as he at one time kept ho had burnt within four months of the presentation of a petition against him for cessio, and that he had written to one creditor offering to pay him ten shillings in the pound "if he would pretend to accept two shillings, and not tell the other creditors;" whether, under "The Debtors (Scotland) Act, 1880," it is a crime punishable by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a bankrupt, within four months next before the presentation of a petition for cessio, to have destroyed or mutilated any book, document, paper, or writing, relating to his property or affairs, or, if his debts exceed two hundred pounds, not to have kept such books or accounts as, according to the usual practice of his business, are necessary to explain his transactions, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that he had no intent to defraud; and, why no proceedings were taken by the Crown Office under that statute in Mackenzie's case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I have made inquiry into this matter. The deposition of Kenneth Mackenzie was made more than a year ago, on 3rd June, 1881. It contains the admissions set out in the Question. Mackenzie stated that he kept certain books in pencil; but they do not
  1228
  appear to have been proper mercantile books. He was the son of a crofter, residing in his father's house, and had no shop of his own, although he seems to have obtained a quantity of boots and shoes on credit. Ho appears to have been an ignorant man, imperfectly acquainted with the English language. The provision of the Debtors Act is correctly recited in the Question. The case was reported to my Predecessor, and fully investigated by his instructions. The Procurator Fiscal reported that, in his opinion, and that of the Sheriff who presided at the examination, the case was a very trifling one, and the Crown Counsel decided at the time that there were not materials for a successful prosecution.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL—THE IRISH CHURCH FUND.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state what were the arrears in respect of the permanent income of £293,455 per annum of the Irish Church Fund on the 1st April 1881, and the arrears on the 1st April 1882; and, whether it is proposed by the Government to make any allowance, on the principle of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, to the persons from whom this income, consisting of the tithe rent-charge, perpetuity rents, and interest on mortgage, is derived?
  MR. COURTNEY: The arrears on the permanent income of the Irish Church Fund were, on the 1st of January, 1881, £156,000, and those on the 1st of January, 1882, are estimated at £148,000. These are accumulated arrears. I cannot admit the analogy implied in the latter part of the Question, and as yet no suggestion has been made for remission of the character indicated.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA SURGEONS PENSIONS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, on the compulsory retirement under 68A. Circular, January 1882, of militia surgeons holding commissions from lord lieutenants of counties, at the age of sixty-five, the pension of six shillings a day, to which, under certain circumstances, such surgeons were entitled to has been refused them; and, if

  1229
  he will explain under what enactment the right to this pension is alleged to have been destroyed?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I have to state that until 1829 Militia surgeons were members of the permanent Staff, and, like other officers of that Staff, entitled to pensions on reduction of the force, or on retirement through age or infirmity. But no Militia surgeon appointed since 1829—that is to say, during the last 53 years—has been entitled to a retiring allowance. Her Majesty has always had the power to decide at what age Militia officers should cease to serve, and in 1872 this age was fixed at 60, although retirement was not enforced in every case. In 1881 it was decided that at 65 all Militia surgeons must retire, this being a boon to them compared with other Militia officers.

  SMALL TENEMENTS AND HIGHWAY RATES—LEGISLATION.
  MR. HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board, When he proposes, in pursuance of his promise of March 10th, to bring in a short Bill to again place owners of small tenements in the same position as regards highway rates as they now are as regards poor rates, and in which they were as to highway rates before the repeal of the 13 and 14 Vic. c. 99, by the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 66?
  MR. DODSON: On Monday, Sir.

  CRIMINAL LAW—RELEASE OF CRAWSHAY CRAWSHAY, A CONVICT.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If there was any special reason for discharging from custody a prisoner named Crawshay Crawshay, who was convicted of fraudulently embezzling public money belonging to the Heston and Isleworth Local Board, at the Central Criminal Court, on 2nd April 1881, when he had only served half his sentence; and, whether he was aware that at the above trial there were seven other similar indictments against the prisoner that were not proceeded with, and that the Recorder, in passing sentence, said,
  "Had the Board proceeded with the other Bills, and not recommended you to mercy, it would have been my duty to have sentenced
  1230
  you to penal servitude. You will go to prison for two years with hard labour?"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, there were very special reasons for discharging this prisoner Early in the present year the Recorder reported to him that, under the circumstances of the case, the prisoner should not have been convicted; that he had nut had fair play, and that the testimony on which he was convicted was incorrect and misleading; and that, in his (the Recorder's) opinion, all further punishment ought to be remitted. In these circumstances, he had ordered the discharge of the prisoner.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH SPAIN.
  MR. HENRY LEEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any progress has been made in securing for this Country, by means of the "most favoured nation clause," the advantages obtained by France and Germany in the Treaty recently made by them with the Government of Spain; whether he is aware that the difference between the terms given to France, and those accorded to nations not having a Treaty of Commerce, is from 35 to 70 per cent.; whether he can state the quantity of Spanish wine imported into Bordeaux during the past year; and, if he is aware that the Spanish wines are reduced in strength, adulterated, and coloured with a certain drug, in order to render them available for the English market?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to make public the nature of the exchange of ideas which is now taking place between the two Powers with the view to place their commercial relations on a better footing. I am aware that in the case of some goods the difference of rate of duty referred to does exist. The French official figures for 1881 of the import of Spanish wine into Bordeaux separately are not yet published; but the total importation of such wine was about 5,500,000 hectolitres, or five-sevenths of the imports from all countries. We are aware that both Spanish and Italian wines are largely mixed with French wines and with water, and exported to this and other countries; and, accord-

  1231
  ing to M. Leroy Beaulieu's statement, they are also drunk in Paris; but it does not appear to be usually necessary to colour the mixture in the case of Spanish wines, which are often of very dark colour.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE MURDERS OF MR. BOURKE AND CORPORAL WALLACE.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" correspondence from Ireland on Monday, that by a singular omission of the authorities the three dragoons appointed to protect the late Mr. Bourke were unprovided with horses, except at the expense of the person protected, the result having been that Mr. Bourke, bringing but one guard with him, and having him upon the same vehicle as himself, lost the advantage which a separate and double guard would have afforded him; whether it is true that in consequence of the regulation that no trooper is to carry his carbine loaded, unless at full cock, the practice is not to load until the occasion arises; and, if so, whether any alteration of the regulations in both matters is contemplated?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the recent assassination of Mr. Bourke and his escort, Whether it was consistent with the orders given about escorts that only one man should be on that duty; whether Cavalry soldiers employed on escort duty should be mounted or dismounted; what order as to arms of escorts being loaded has been given; and, whether, if Corporal Wallace, of the Royal Dragoons, was married, any special allowance will be made to his widow or family; and, if so, whether such sum will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund or charged on the district in which the murder took place?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, it was no omission on the part of the authorities that the three men appointed to protect Mr. Bourke were unprovided with horses. Neither the Constabulary nor the soldiers employed on protection duty are mounted, as, in point of fact, they could not use their arms so well as when on foot or in cars. There is no intention whatever to make any change in this respect. Mr. Bourke's being escorted
  1232
  by only one man was a distinct violation of orders; and, although this appears to have been done at his own urgent request, it should not have been allowed by the officer in charge. Arrangements are being made by the Irish Government for the escorts being always on a separate vehicle from the person guarded. As to the arms being loaded, the instruction of the Commander of the Forces was that the rifles were not to be carried loaded except when immediate danger was apprehended. Sir Thomas Steele has now issued an order that the men's rifles are to be loaded. With reference to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I am sorry to say that I only this morning have heard that the widow of Corporal Wallace was not on the married establishment, he having married without leave. I will look further into the matter; but I fear that I cannot now say what ought to be done about her.

  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—FOREIGN LANGUAGES—THE EXAMINATION PAPERS.
  MR. JERNINGHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has boon called to the unpractical, and even grotesque, nature of some of the Foreign papers set for translation to candidates for the Diplomatic Service; and, whether he sees his way to remedying the evil of the present system?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no complaint has been made of the nature of the Papers set for translation in examination for the Diplomatic Service; but my hon. Friend, perhaps, alludes to those set in a recent examination of Foreign Office clerks for special acquirements in foreign languages, which appear not of a kind to test the practical knowledge required, and to which the attention of the Civil Service Commissioners has been called.

  POST OFFICE-TELEPHONE LICENCES.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Postmaster General, If, taking into account that nearly a month has elapsed 6ince ho informed the House that he was considering the application of the London and Globe Telephone and Maintenance Company, Limited, for a licence, he can now state the decision at which he has

  1233
  arrived; and, if not, within what period he expects to be able to announce his decision?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the question as to the granting of Telephone Exchange licences involves many important and difficult issues. The subject has been for some time engaging my careful attention; and, although I regret that I cannot fix the precise time when I shall be able to announce a decision, I can assure the hon. Member that there shall be no unnecessary delay. I could not, within the limits of an answer to a Question, state the points that have to he considered, nor do I think it expedient that they should now be stated.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—MR. JAMES SHERIDAN, DRUMHALRY, GRANARD, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. James Sheridan, of Drumhalry, in the barony of Granard, county of Longford, who was, on the 8th May, evicted from his land by the sheriff with a force of Constabulary; whether it is the fact that Mr. Sheridan was served with a writ in August 1881 for four years' rent; whether he then produced a receipt for the greater portion of this rent at the trial, and the plaintiff, the owner of the land, obtained judgment in the Common Pleas Division for one half-year's rent, £12 5s.; whether the sheriff sent Mr. Sheridan a notice that he had an order against him for £12 5s. with 13s. costs; whether Mr. Sheridan paid the amount of rent and costs, and holds the sheriff's receipt for the same; and, whether he can say under what circumstances Mr. Sheridan was evicted from his land on the 8th May?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Sheridan's landlady obtained a writ for a sum of £12 5s. The sheriff sold the interest in trust for the landlady. Sheridan did not attend the sale, but afterwards went to the sheriff and asked him to take the money from him and forego the sale. The sheriff consented, but informed Sheridan at the same time that there would be additional costs, which Sheridan agreed to pay, but afterwards refused, on being informed of their amount. Subsequently, the agent got
  1234
  the writ on the sheriff's assignment, the costs not being forthcoming.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the magistrates of the borough of Limerick were given an opportunity of expressing their views to the Government on the state of that city before its late proclamation; whether they have, since the proclamation, addressed a protest to the Irish Government against that measure; whether the grounds of that protest have been considered, and, if not, whether they will be considered, by the Government; and, whether the proclamation was the result of private information in possession of the Government, or of the general condition of the city; and, if of the latter, whether he will state what circumstances of its condition have led to the step in question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, a letter fully explaining all the facts of this case was addressed by the Lord Lieutenant to the Mayor of Limerick on the 10th instant. If the hon. and learned Member will communicate with the authorities of Limerick he will learn the nature of that letter, which, I think, answers the first three paragraphs of his Question. The city was proclaimed under the Act 6 Will. IV., c. 15, as in a state of disturbance, with a view of extra police being sent there on the recommendation of the County Inspector of Constabulary, after consulting and with the concurrence of the Resident Magistrate permanently stationed there, and the Special Resident Magistrate of the district.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the proclamation was the result of private information in the possession of the Government or of the general condition of the city?
  MR. HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask whether the Special Resident Magistrate is Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received no information relating to the general state of the city; but I hold in my hand a long list of riots and assaults on the

  1235
  police. This list occupies nearly four pages, and upon looking over it, I see that many of the cases are of a serious nature. As to the letter, I shall be very glad if the hon. and learned Member will communicate with the City authorities.

  EMIGRATION ACTS—EMIGRANTS IN HULL.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the large number of emigrants landed from time to time in Hull, and to the absence of any suitable lodging accommodation for them; whether his attention has been more particularly called to the case of a lodging-house keeper named Brodie, who was charged at the Hull Police Court on the 16th May with receiving lodgers into his house in excess of the certified number, and who frankly admitted that he offered to take in as many as 500 emigrants, whereas he was only licensed for 73, stating that there was no other course open to him, the evening being wet, and there being some 1,600 emigrants just landed in the town, unable to find accommodation elsewhere; and, whether the Board of Trade will inquire into the state of the lodging-houses in Hull in the interest of the large emigrant traffic passing through that town?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have been requested to answer this Question in consequence of a medical inspection having recently been made, by my direction, as to the sanitary state of Hull, in connection with which the condition of emigrants landing there was investigated. I understand from the Inspector that cases have occurred in which the provisions of the Public Health Act in regard to common lodging-houses have been violated in order to provide accommodation for excessive numbers of emigrants. This, however, appears to be altogether exceptional, and as only occurring when the lodging-houses provided for this class have been filled, which, however, is not often the case. The lodging-houses provided for the emigrants he found to be well kept.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION—OUTDOOR CLERKS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is
  1236
  aware that the dissatisfaction of the Custom House clerks with the position they are being placed in by the reorganization is increasing, and that the answers given have not reassured them; if he is aware that they look upon the new position as a direct violation of the conditions on which they entered the service of the Crown, though they are afraid to make individual complaints, believing that a black mark will be set against those who do so; and, what steps he proposes to take to assure the House and the Country that these men are being treated with justice?
  MR. COURTNEY: We know of no reason that would lead us to suppose that any dissatisfaction exists among the Custom House clerks who have been transferred to the out-door department with the position in which they have been placed by the recent re-organization, nor have they, in our opinion, any reasonable ground for being dissatisfied. There is no ground for saying that the new position of such clerks is in direct violation of the conditions on which they entered the Service of the Crown, inasmuch as there was nothing in those conditions to prevent their being transferred to any other branch of the Customs Department for the good of the Public Service if unwilling to accept pensions. No impediment has been placed in the way of clerks affected by the change making fair and reasonable representations respecting their cases, individually or collectively, either to the Treasury or to the Board of Customs.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT)—A SIXPENNY RATE FOR TELEGRAMS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between him and the Committee of Lloyd's with reference to a proposal to adopt a sixpenny rate for certain telegrams, and an undertaking on the part of the Committee to indemnify the Government against any loss that might accrue from the experiment?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, it is not usual to lay on the Table such Correspondence as that to which the hon. Member refers, and I regret, therefore, that I am not able to comply with his request. I may, perhaps, add that in declining the proposal

  1237
  to which reference is made I was mainly influenced by the opinion that whenever sixpenny telegrams are introduced, they should not be confined to any particular company or association, but that the public generally should participate in the change.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—JOHN DUNN AND THE ZULU CHIEFS.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the large Zulu deputation which visited Natal in April last, to ask for the release of Cetewayo, included twenty Chiefs and Headmen from John Dunn's territory, and that while they were in Pietermaritzburg Dunn, who had followed them to that town, publicly threatened them with personal violence on their return to Zulu-land; and, whether Dunn's conduct has been brought under the notice of Sir Henry Bulwer?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, that Sir Henry Bulwer had sent a full Report with enclosures to the Colonial Office on that matter; but there was nothing either in the Report or in the enclosures which led them to credit the statement that John Dunn had publicly threatened those Chiefs with personal violence. The Papers would be laid on the Table, and the hon. Member would be able to judge of the matter for himself. It was true that the deputation to Natal included 20 Chiefs and Headmen from John Dunn's territory.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—CONSULATE AT KHARTOUM.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the appointment of Mr. Mieville to the Consulship of the Soudan has been cancelled on account of health; and, if so, whether any other appointment has yet been made?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it has been decided on grounds of health to appoint Mr. Mieville to some other post, and to select another gentleman for the Consulate at Khartoum. No fresh appointment has, however, yet been made.

  SUNDAY LABOUR-EMPLOYMENT OF WORKMEN ON SUNDAY.
  MR. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether
  1238
  his attention has been drawn to the fact that workmen were employed last Sunday upon the repairs now in progress at the Continental Hotel, Waterloo Place; and, whether he will take any steps in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think this is a matter in which I am called upon to interfere.
  MR. HICKSasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not a fact that no steps could be taken in that matter under the 34 & 35 Vict. without the intervention of the police or the stipendiary magistrates of London?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That does not alter the answer I have given.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIAN FOR THE KILLENKEY DIVISION, RATHDRUM UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the election of Poor Law Guardian for the Killenkey Electoral Division of Rathdrum Union, and to the objection made to the return by Mr. John Gaskin, one of the candidates, on the ground that votes were improperly received by the clerk of the union in his capacity of returning officer, Whether it is true that the Local Government Board refused Mr. Gaskin a scrutiny of the voting papers, stating that they were quite satisfied with the explanation given by the returning officer; whether, on being furnished with specific objections by Mr. Gaskin, the Board, in a letter to him dated the 24th May 1882, made the following admission:—
  "In regard to Dr. Truell's own votes as landlord, the Board do not think the returning officer ought to have allowed more than six votes, and they are in communication with the returning officer on this subject; but the additional six votes did not affect the final result of the election;"
  whether he will now, as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland, order an independent investigation to be held as to the validity and exact number of the votes taken at the election in question; and, whether he has any objection to lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is very important that the public should be satisfied that elections have been con-

  1239
  ducted according to law, and where there is reasonable uneasiness there is no objection to ordering an inquiry. I have communicated with the Local Government Board to this effect.

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) ACT—CASE OF JOSEPH MAGILL, BELFAST.
  MR. EWARTasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the case that the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Joseph Magill, late of Belfast, an extensive trader, have been in court since July 1875; that the printworks and property where his business was carried on were sold for £28,000, in June 1880, and possession taken by the purchasers in November 1880; that, during the last seven years, largo sums have been paid into court, now amounting to £20,000, but nothing paid out, except costs to solicitors; whether it is the case that a local solicitor, instructed by creditors, cannot appear in the Bankruptcy Court, where Dublin solicitors have exclusive audience, with such results as stated above; and, whether the Government intend to proceed with a Local Bankruptcy Act this Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson): Sir, this is a most complicated case. The firm, consisting of throe partners, petitioned for an arrangement as to the joint estate of the firm, and Mr. Magill, one of the partners, also petitioned for a like arrangement as to his separate estate, consisting principally of the Whitewell Print Works. Considerable litigation ensued as to the rights of the creditors of the joint and separate estates, and the trading was continued by a trustee under creditors' resolution until the sale of the Whitewell Works in 1880, which was, I understand, the earliest period at which, owing to the depression of trade, a sale could be advantageously had. The purchase money was £28,000, and of this £24,000 was covered by mortgages. Under the conditions of sale the purchasers were let into possession on part payment of the purchase money, and further sums on account have been since paid into Court. Some costs have been paid, but no dividend yet declared. If any creditor has been or is dissatisfied he can bring his complaint at any time before the Court for redress. It is not the case that a local solicitor cannot appear in the Bankruptcy Court in Ire-
  1240
  land. Every solicitor in Ireland has equal right to appear and have audience there. Last Session I did my best to get on the Local Bankruptcy Bill; but this Session the House knows that the state of Business is such that I have little hope of doing anything effectually in this direction.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is one of the Trustees to aid the Sea and Coast Fisheries of Ireland; whether over thirty thousand pounds of charity money collected from the public is lying unproductive in the hands of the Trustees; if he is aware that some years ago the Trustees recommended that the fund should be transferred to the Inspectors of Fisheries, to be lent by them to the sea coast fishermen; and, if ho will take steps to have that recommendation carried into effect?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, I am an ex-officio trustee of the charity known as the Trustees to Aid the Sea and Coast Fisheries of Ireland. There is undoubtedly a considerable sum of money —falling much short of £30,000, however you regard it—which is lying unemployed as far as loans to fishermen are concerned. In 1879 the trustees proposed to transfer the trust fund to the Government; but it was found there were difficulties in the way. I hope to have an opportunity of going into this question in Ireland when the Session is over, and consulting with my brother trustees in Dublin as to the best means of making use of any of the trust money that may be available for loans to fishermen.

  CRIME AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DETECTIVE POLICE FORCE—COLONEL BRACKENBURY.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the special qualifications of Colonel Brackenbury for the organization or command of a detective police force in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Colonel Brackenbury has been appointed an assistant Under Secretary to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, to relieve

  1241
  the Under Secretary of duties relating to police and crime. In this capacity he exercises a general administrative control over the whole of the police in Ireland; but does not supersede the heads of the police in their executive functions. The Government have satisfied themselves that Colonel Brackenbury is a man of exceptional ability and energy. If the hon. Member chooses, I will read the successive positions of trust and difficulty in which Colonel Brackenbury has almost continuously served. ["No, no!"]

  INDIA (BENGAL)—THE DURBHUNGA RAJ.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the letter in which Mr. M. Finucane, Bengal Civil Service, resigned the managership of the Durbhunga Raj at the end of 1880, on the ground that he could not conscientiously carry out large proposed enhancements of rent; whether the resignation of Mr. Finucane was accepted; and, whether a relative of the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Ashley Eden, was forthwith appointed in his place manager to the Maharajah of Durbhunga at an increased salary?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, Mr. Finucane was never manager of the Durbhunga Estate. He was lent by Government to assist in completing the survey of the estate under the manager, Colonel Money. Colonel Money is a distant connection by marriage of Sir Ashley Eden; but was selected for the post of manager of the estate by Sir Richard Temple when Lieutenant Governor. Nothing is known of Mr. Finu-cane's letter of resignation. It is believed that he completed the survey on which he was employed.

  INDIA—IMPORTATION OF PETROLEUM—RELAXATION OF PRECAUTIONARY LEGISLATION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in the Calcutta correspondence of the "Times," that, immediately on the receipt of a communication from him, Lord Ripon caused a measure to be introduced into the Indian Legislative Council relaxing the precautions on the importation of petroleum into India;
  1242
  whether it is true that immediately on the receipt of another communication from him Lord Ripon suspended further progress with the measure in question; whether he will lay Copies of these communications upon the Table of the House; how many members of the Indian Legislative Council were present at the meeting of that body at which the measure relaxing the precautions on the importation of petroleum was introduced, and what were their names; and, whether Government will take steps to secure some representation of the interests of 200,000,000 subjects of the Crown?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, as I have already stated, the measure was introduced in consequence of certain communications made to the Government of India. Its progress appears to have been suspended in consequence of representations which have been made in India, and not, so far as I am aware, in consequence of any communication from me. The correspondence which has passed with the Government of India is entirely telegraphic, and necessarily represents imperfectly the facts which were before me. As soon as it is sufficiently complete to give full information, there will probably be no objection to its production. The Secretary of State has frequently expressed a strong opinion as to the undesirability of carrying on important legislation at Simla in the absence of unofficial members of the Legislative Council; but it is evident that this matter was urgent, and, if dealt with at all, did not admit of delay.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Can the noble Lord give the House any information respecting the number of Members of the Legislative Council, who took upon themselves to move in this matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; all that we know has reached us by telegraph, and I have already communicated it to the House.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any, and, if any, what security was taken from the following suspects on their release from

  1243
  imprisonment on reasonable suspicion of having committed crimes of violence; and, if no security was taken, whether the reasonable suspicion was proved to be unreasonable?—

  Name of Prisoner.

  Prison.

  Ground stated for his Arrest in the Warrant. Reasonably suspected of

  Thomas Winterscahill.

  Galway

  Assaulting dwelling houses and assaulting and robbing persons therein by night.

  Patrick Quinlan

  Limerick

  Assaulting and wounding a person by night.

  William Quinlan

  Limerick

  Assaulting and wounding a person by night.

  Patrick Murphy

  Naas

  Arson.

  John Ryan

  Dundalk

  Murder.

  Michael Walsh

  Galway

  Shooting with intent to murder.

  Martin Kearney

  Monaghan

  Maiming cattle.

  Bernard Molloy

  Armagh

  Arson.

  James Leavey

  Enniskillen.

  Arson.

  Michael M'Queeny

  Enniskillen.

  Murder.

  Edmund Stewart

  Clonmel

  Shooting and wounding.

  Patrick Gallogly

  Monaghan

  Breaking into houses by night and assaulting persons therein.

  Patrick Beirne

  Monaghan

  Breaking into houses by night and assaulting persons therein.

  John Sheridan

  Monaghan

  Breaking into houses by night and assaulting persons therein.

  Rodger Brien

  Monaghan

  Assaulting a dwelling house by night.

  Cornelius Kelleher

  Monaghan

  Attacking and injuring a dwelling house.

  MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Baronet will consult the Protection of Person and Property Act, he will find that it does not empower the Lord Lieutenant to require a prisoner on release to give any security for his future good behaviour. His Excellency, however, authorizes me to say that in each of the cases referred to in this Question he caused inquiry to be made whether the prisoners could be released without danger to the peace of the district, and based his decision in each case upon a consideration of the result of such inquiry and of all the other circumstances. The hon. Member must remember that these people were never tried, and that there is no public record of the extent to which they were suspected or had participated in the offences which are
  1244
  opposite their names; and it may be that in some instances there were no grounds for the suspicion.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked whether an undertaking had not been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland or his Predecessor that persons imprisoned on suspicion of crimes of violence would not be released without being brought to trial?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwished to know whether it was not a fact that a pledge was given by the Predecessor of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that no man should be imprisoned under the Protection of Person and Property Act except on such grounds as would, in the opinion of the Government, have secured a conviction before an impartial jury?
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have any objection to put into the form of a Parliamentary Paper the grounds on which the suspicion of His Excellency was founded?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I can answer no Question as to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant except in the most general terms. As to whether any pledge was given by my Predecessor, that is a serious question, and one which I cannot answer without Notice.
  MR. BRODRICKinquired whether the depositions made previous to the imprisonment of each "suspect" would be produced?
  [No answer was given.]

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—APPLICATIONS OF PERSONS EVICTED TO THE LAND COURTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many of the tenants evicted last month had made application to the Land Courts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have telegraphed to Dublin to ask to have this information made out. It will take several days to get it.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—ENGLISH POLICY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in September last Mr. Cookson used the following language to Arabi Pasha:—

  1245
  "I told him that if they persisted in assuming the government of the country the army must be prepared to meet the united forces of the Sultan and of the European Powers, both of whom were too much interested in the welfare and tranquillity of Egypt to allow the country to descend, through a military government, to anarchy;"
  and, whether that language was approved by Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, my hon. Friend is justified in assuming that Her Majesty's Government approve it.

  THE IRISH CHURCH FUND—AMOUNT OF THE SURPLUS.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it would be right to conclude, from the Irish Church Funds Return, that on and after 1932 the permanent income of the Commission will be £293,000 per annum; and, whether that income may be safely taken as representing, at the rate of three-and-a-half per cent, a capital of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 sterling; and that, therefore, after paying off the National School Teachers' Fund, the Intermediate Education Fund, and the Royal University Fund, in all about £2,900,000, between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 will still remain available for the Arrears Bill and other purely Irish purposes?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the permanent income of the Church Fund, as given in the Returns recently presented, is taken from the last Report of the Church Commission, which shows the state of the Fund on the 31st of December, 1880. Its position in this respect had not appreciably altered at the date when the Return was prepared. But it does not follow that the relations between the permanent and terminable income of the Fund will always remain the same. Persons owing rent-charges, rent, or mortgages to the Church Fund, may redeem their liabilities. The terminable income would be thereby increased, and the permanent income diminished. The Government are not prepared to undertake responsibility for the calculation made by the hon. Member. But I must observe that the present value of a capital of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000, accruing 50 years hence, would be only £1,600,000 or £ 1,800,000.

  ARMY—OFFICERS OF THE RESERVE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any order has been or is about to be issued, giving permission to Officers of the Reserve to wear the uniform of their late regiment at Court; or if he will state the decision of the authorities on the subject?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that with respect to the uniform of some classes of Reserve officers orders have been already issued, but not as to all; but full Regulations will shortly be issued.

  NAVY—DOCKYARDS—MEMORIAL OF ESTABLISHED SHIPWRIGHTS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Memorials of the established shipwrights of Her Majesty's dockyards, sent in due form through the proper channels, have been received; and, if so, whether any consideration has been given to the subject?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the Memorials referred to by the hon. Member have been received and carefully considered by the professional advisers of the Admiralty; but the increases of pay asked for by the shipwrights have not been recommended for adoption. A reply has not yet been sent, because it has been customary to defer the announcement of the Board's decision in such cases until after the Estimates have been voted.

  SPIRITS ACT, 1880—EVASION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AT PETERHEAD.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, since by sections 146, 148, and 151 of "The Spirits Act, 1880," it is enacted that any person who, in Scotland, sells or exposes to sale spirits, otherwise than in premises for which he is licensed to sell spirits, shall incur a penalty of not less than £25, with forfeiture of the spirits in his possession; that any person who buys or procures spirits from such unlicensed person shall incur a fine of £100; and that any officer or person employed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who, by any wilful act, neglect, or default, does or permits, or agrees to do or

  1247
  permit, any thing in contravention or evasion of "The Spirits Act, 1880," shall incur a fine of £500, and be disqualified from serving Her Majesty in any office or employment; if he would state what officer or person in the employment of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is responsible for permitting, and agreeing to permit, a contravention or evasion of this Act, in Peterhead, by three persons allowed by the Excise authorities, after attention had been called to the fact in this House, to sell liquor without confirmation of their certificates, and without licences, as if they were licensed grocers and publicans; and, whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue intend taking any action in respect of their officer's deliberate breach of section 151 of the Spirits Act of 1880?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Hoard of Inland Revenue are alone responsible for the course which was advisedly pursued in the special circumstances of these cases; and, therefore, action will not be taken against any of their officers in the matter. The Board did not grant licences; they only abstained for a short period at their discretion from Excise interference with the sale of liquor, the Justices' clerk having had reason to believe that a further Court would be held about the middle of this month. Any other course of action would have been unjust towards the applicants, who, but for the accidental non-attendance of a quorum in the Confirmation Court, would doubtless have had their certificates fully confirmed past all dispute. If, notwithstanding this explanation, any person should consider himself aggrieved by the action of the magistrates and the Commissioners, it is open to him to contest the matter by proceeding before the magistrates for a penalty for the sale of intoxicating liquor without a magistrate's certificate.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JAMES BANON.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will favourably consider the case of James Banon, a suspect in Kilmainham Gaol, with a view to his release, who has a large family dependent upon him, and 60 acres of land, without any person to attend to the same during
  1248
  his incarceration, now extending to nearly three months' duration?
  MR.TREVELYAN: Sir, James Banon was arrested on the 11th of April last, and has, therefore, been little more than two months in custody. His Excellency yesterday reconsidered his case, and decided that he cannot at present order his release.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE AFFRAY AT BALLINA.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the coroner's juries, in the case of the boy Melody at Ballina, were empannelled; if he can state what compensation the Government has given to the family of Melody, and the families of those who were wounded in the recent affray; and, whether ho can now give the House an assurance that the services of Sub-Inspector Ball, under whose orders the occurrence took place, have been entirely dispensed with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Attorney General has not yet received the depositions in this case. He has telegraphed to the Sessional Crown Solicitor to know the cause of the delay.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that portion of my Question which relates to compensation to the family of the boy Melody.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am advising the Government on this matter, and I have asked them not to come to a final decision until I have had an opportunity of looking into the matter. We had expected before this to have had intelligence on the subject.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: In that case I beg to give Notice that next week I shall repeat my Question.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTER AT MILFORD, CO. CORK—CASE OF MATTHEW MURPHY.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has any objection to re-instate Mr. Mathew Murphy, of Milford, county Cork, in the office of postmaster of that town, he being now competent and willing to discharge the duties of the office?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that certain inquiries are being made in reference to this case, and I am consequently unable at the present time to answer his Question.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN O'BRIEN.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that Mr. John O'Brien, who was arrested in November last, charged with inciting to Boycotting, whereas the real charge against him, by local authorities, and reported to the Castle, was
  "Being the ringleader of a riotous mob in the town of Roscrea, on the night of 26th August, 1881;"
  if it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was sent for trial, in company with two others, on said charge; if it is a fact that Judge Barry, at the Kilkenny Winter Assizes, on hearing the evidence of the police, ordered the prisoner's discharge, without going into the evidence for the defence; and whether Judge Barry said, "In this case the police were the real aggressors;" and, whether Mr. O'Brien will now be released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The charge upon which John O'Brien has been arrested is that stated in the Returns before Parliament—"Boycotting." It is quite true that this man was suspected of having formed one of a mob of persons who assaulted the police in the town of Roscrea on the 26th of August last. Several of the police were very badly injured on the occasion, and two persons were sent for trial at the Winter Assizes as having been engaged in the assault. O'Brien was in custody under the Protection Act at the time of the Assizes, and was not put on his trial. The Crown Solicitor informed me that it was distinctly proved that they were in the mob, but the Judge did not think there was sufficient evidence of participation in the riot, and stopped the case, but that he did not say the Constabulary were the aggressors, nor did he utter one word condemnatory of them. His Excellency has had O'Brien's case under consideration, but finds he cannot at present order his release.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. JOHN AND CORNELIUS KELLEHER, WILLIAM WALSH, AND MAURICE GLEESON.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John and Cornelius Kelleher, William Walsh, and Maurice Gleeson, are still detained in Kilmainham Gaol, although three others, arrested on the same day, in the same district, and on the same charge, have been released; and, if so, why the above-named are not released?
  MR TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency considers every case upon its own merits. He has had the case of the persons referred to in this Question of the hon. Member under consideration, but finds that he cannot at present order their release.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY-EXTRA PAY—EXCONSTABLE WALSH.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the extra pay to be voted to the police will include allowances to men not paid off before the 24th April last; and, whether, in that case, there is any reason for refusing to allow the extra amount to Ex-Sub-Constable Walsh, who was not paid off until the 27th April?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that the words of the Order issued to the Constabulary in reference to the proposed grant are that members of the Force who were serving in the Force on the 24th of April, 1882, will be entitled to participate in the grant. Ex-Constable Walsh was discharged from the Constabulary on the 13th of February, and is not entitled to share in the extra pay.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons are now in custody in Ireland under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act of last year; how many of these persons are

  1251
  classified by the Government as being under the suspicion of "personal association with crime;" what is the cause of the prolonged delay in setting at liberty the persons not so classified; and how soon their release may be expected; if he will state the number and names of the persons now imprisoned in Ireland under the statute of the 34th of Edward III.; and, whether the Government will undertake to release those persons, and to abandon the use of the statute?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number in custody yesterday was 216. The number of such persons who are charged in the warrants as suspected of being implicated in crimes other than intimidation is 125. The cases are being considered and decided upon by the Lord Lieutenant day by day as rapidly as their due consideration will allow. His Excellency must be satisfied that the release can be made without danger to the peace of the district. I have called for the information asked for in the latter part of the Question, but have not yet received it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—COUNTY WEXFORD.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on June 13th, two tenants on the property of Mr. Bate, in the county of Wexford, were evicted, and, immediately after the eviction, their houses were burned down by the emergency men who took possession; and, whether, in view of the right of redemption possessed by these tenants, the Government will consent to include such conduct amongst offences as defined by the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, these evictions were on title. The holdings became the absolute property of the landlord on his obtaining possession of them, and he had a legal right to destroy the buildings. The tenants did not possess in this case any right of redemption.

  IRELAND—MR. O'SHEA'S VISIT TO KILMAINHAM GAOL.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is able to state if
  1252
  any person accompanied the honourable Member for Clare on the occasion of his visit to Kilmainham Prison, and what entry was made in connection with that visit in the prison books; whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the visits made to the political prisoners in Kilmainham Prison during their incarceration, with the names and dates; and, whether, in any instance, visitors have been admitted to see the prisoners without their names being recorded?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I know absolutely nothing about this matter; but I have asked the hon Member for Clare whether any gentleman went with him on that occasion, and he says that he was alone.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not the first time that the Government has been asked about this matter, and I recollect that when I asked a somewhat similar Question about this matter some days ago—["Order!"]—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the Government were ignorant of everything connected with it. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to ask a Question arising out of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not entitled to enter upon other matters.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could inform us whether any gentleman was admitted to the prison on the same day as the hon. Member for Clare went, and, if so, whether he was obliged to enter his name in the Visitors' Book?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir, I will inquire.
  MR. O'SHEA: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that nobody went to Kilmainham with me, and that I have since asked my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork whether anybody else went to see him on that day, and he tells me that nobody went.

  THE IRISH FISHERIES—THE REPORT, 1881.
  MR. BLAKEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for 1881 has not been presented; and, if he will take measures to have it in the hands of Members before the Second Reading of the Sea

  1253
  Fisheries (Ireland) Bill on the 28th instant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that the Report is all in type, and is now undergoing revision. They expect to have it ready for presentation in the course of a week.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. T. & P. MORRISSY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the time has arrived for the release of Mr. Thomas Morrissy and his brother, whose parents have suffered great loss by their imprisonment, and who have been already confined for a period of seven months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has had the cases of Messrs. Thomas and Patrick Morrissy under his consideration, and has decided that he cannot at present order their release.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR.JOHN DARCEY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the time has arrived for the release of John Darcey, who has now been incarcerated since June 17th 1881; and, if the Government be not willing to order Mr. Darcey's release, whether they will permit his transfer from Dundalk to Galway Gaol, so that he may be able to communicate with his wife and children, who have suffered severe loss from his imprisonment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has re-considered Mr. John Darcey's case, but finds that he cannot at present order his release. His application to be transferred to Galway Gaol had been considered last December, when it was decided that it could not be acceded to; but the reasons which then applied need not now apply, and the application shall be re-considered.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. WILLIAM KEOGH.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1254
  of Ireland, Whether the time has arrived for the release of Mr. William Keogh, who has been imprisoned since February 10th in Monaghan Gaol, on the comparatively slight offence of preventing the payment of rents; and, whether two suspects from the same district, arrested on a similar charge, were released after an imprisonment of three months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency has ordered further inquiry to be made into Mr. William Keogh's case.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR: ARTHUR MOLONEY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the time has arrived for the release of Mr. Arthur Moloney, who has been detained since January 3rd, and whose business has severely suffered from his incarceration?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency informs me that he has Mr. Arthur Moloney's case still under his consideration.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. THOMAS CUNNINGHAM.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the time has come for the release of Mr. Thomas Cunningham, at present confined in Kilmainham Prison; whether he has been incarcerated since December 29th last; and, whether all the other suspects from the same district (Loughrea) have been already released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Thomas Cunningham has been under detention since the 29th of December last. His Excellency has the case under consideration, and I will let the hon. Member know the result when I hear it.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. J. P. QUINN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Lieutenant considers that the peace of Dublin, where he resides, would be endangered by the re-

  1255
  lease of Mr. J. P. Quinn from Enniskillen Gaol; if it is the fact that, although he has been arrested for incitement to non-payment of rent, the Government can show no speech containing such incitement; whether he is aware that Mr. Quinn simply acted under Mr. Brennan, who has since been released, in the Land League office; and, if he can assign any reason for Mr. Quinn's continued detention, now that men holding higher positions in the Land League organization have been released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency had this case under consideration on the day before yesterday, and is unable at present to order Mr. Quinn's release. I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman—what I have said in answer to many questions asked from various points of view—that I can enter into no detail in matters referring to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has any reparation been demanded for the losses and injuries sustained by British subjects in the late disturbances in Egypt; and, if so, from whom; and, whether Papers cannot be now presented relating to the mission of Dervish Pacha, and the proceedings consequent thereupon?
  MR. SLAGG: Before the hon. Baronet answers that Question, I should like to ask another which relates to the same subject. It is, Whether he can give any information as to what steps, if any, have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the protection of the property of two citizens of Manchester—Mr. Dobson and Mr. Richardson.—who lost their lives in the recent disturbances at Alexandria? I should like also to refer the hon. Baronet, if the House will permit me, to an important telegram sent to me this morning from Alexandria. I may say that I have been waited upon by an influential deputation of merchants largely interested in British commerce in Egypt. They have laid before me telegrams which really describe a dreadful state of things in Alexandria. The telegram is to this effect, and addressed to a friend
  1256
  of mine, who is possessed of ships in Alexandria—
  "The Consul asks urgently, and for reasons of humanity, can you obtain permission from buyers of steamships to allow more than two voyages to Cyprus with fugitives? Do your utmost to arrange this matter, and obtain leave for more voyages if possible."
  It seems from the report my friend brings me that the people are leaving Alexandria in large numbers. Another friend has a telegram to the effect that European life and property are no longer safe.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir,—
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I do not think it is desirable to allow Questions to be interpolated with other Questions. It is not fair to other Members who are waiting to put their Questions. The Question on the Paper to which I will reply is that of my right hon. Friend Mr. Bourke. I may say that no claims have yet been presented. As soon as any such are received they will be referred in the usual manner to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Papers relating to the mission of Dervish Pasha cannot be detached from the rest of the Papers, which will be brought out as speedily as possible. With regard to the promise I made yesterday to the junior Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), the Colleague of my hon. Friend (Mr. Slagg), I may say that we have received from the British Consul and Admiral at Alexandria a list of the British subjects reported killed. The list substantially agrees with that which has been published in the papers already, although there is one name published which does not appear in our list. With regard to the Question put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Slagg), I may say that a telegram has been received from Mr. Cookson, to the effect that steps have been taken to look after the private effects of Messrs. Dobson and Richardson. With regard to the other Question—although I must apologize for interpolating an answer—as it has been asked I will answer it. A vessel from Port Said has been ordered to Alexandria for the reception of fugitives, and two other private ships have also been made available for persons who wished to go on board—providing, of course, they are persons whose means are such that they cannot reasonably be expected to pay for their passages. The

  1257
  first vessel was taken up by the Admiral to convey persons to Malta. I have no knowledge with regard to the other two ships. There appear to he about 300 British subjects in Alexandria who desire to quit at the present time. The total European population of Egypt is, of course, very large indeed. There are about 30,(00 Greeks, 15.000 French. 15,000 Italians, and 4,000 British (including Maltese), and 4,000 Austrian and German subjects.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet whether it is true that we have been afraid to bury persons who were Europeans in the cemetery at Alexandria, and that Her Majesty's Ship Superb has been used as a hearse to take the bodies to sea?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Notice has been given that a Question like this will be put to-morrow, and I should prefer to answer then.
  MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that the Papers relating to Dervish Pasha will be among the second batch of Papers that are promised?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The most important Papers are being hurried on, which relate to what has taken place up to the middle of May. The other Papers are being prepared as rapidly as possible, and it would be extremely inconvenient to lay a later Paper on the Table before an earlier one.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When are we likely to get any of these Papers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot give any promise; but the further Papers are being got ready as rapidly as possible. They are not yet in the condition of the first revise, but the second batch will be ready next week. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there never has been a case in which important Papers were brought out with such rapidity as in this case. ["Oh, oh!"] This is so, and it will be impossible, if you search the whole records of the Foreign Office, to find out Papers that have been presented with such rapidity.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will these Papers refer to matters up to the 17th of April?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: To the middle of May.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I should like to ask whether the rumour
  1258
  has reached the hon. Baronet that the Eastern Telegraph Company had been obliged to close its doors at Cairo?
  MR. ONSLOW: May I also ask whether it is the intention of the Government, considering that these difficulties have arisen owing to the action of Her Majesty's Government, that those persons who can afford to pay for their passage are really to pay, or whether the Government do not intend to give a free passage to all, and also to victual them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Up to the present Sir Edward Malet has not called upon British subjects to leave the country, nor have any other foreign Consuls called upon their fellow-subjects to do so.
  MR. O'KELLY: I should like to ask whether it is true that the Khedive has called on the Sultan for 18,000 or any other number of Turkish troops? ["Order!"]
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think the opinion of the House is that that Question should not be answered without Notice.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet is now able to answer the Question of which I gave him Notice yesterday. It is, Whether Arabi Pasha was present at the conference which took place between Dervish Pasha and the Khedive; and, further, whether, in the Report which was made by the representatives of the Government in the first instance, it was not stated that Arabi was present?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On the same subject I would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would state whether the Vice Consul or any representative of Her Majesty's Government remains at Cairo—whether in that case Her Majesty's representative is in communication with Arabi, and whether he regards him as a traitor to his Sovereign, or a Minister of his Sovereign? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it is right to point out that in Questions of a grave character such as these the hon. Baronet is entitled to ask that Notice should be given, and also, if he thinks proper, to decline to answer on public grounds. Having made this observation, I do not think it my duty to interpose as regards the Question which has just been put.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir,—
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I should like to observe that the hon. Baronet stated just before that he could not answer a Question which had been put from the Irish Benches because the feeling of the House seemed to be against an answer being given. As soon, however, as Questions were put from the Liberal and Conservative Benches, the hon. Baronet was ready enough to answer.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is impossible that the hon. Member should know what I am about to say. I rose for the purpose of answering the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), as his Question seemed to grow out of the the Question on the Paper. I was going to decline to reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), because his Question does not seem to grow out of the one on the Paper. As regards the right hon. Gentleman's Question, it would have been better if it had been on the Paper, so that an answer might have been given to it in the ordinary way. The meeting which took place between the European Consuls was a meeting between the Representatives of Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, France, and England. There were present at that meeting the Khedive, Dervish Pasha, and the whole of his suite from Constantinople, and Arabi Pasha also. The object of that meeting was to receive an answer to a demand that had been made on Dervish Pasha by the Representatives of the Powers in regard to steps which should be satisfactory to the Great Powers to insure the safety of Europeans in Egypt. Dervish Pasha stated that Arabi had informed him that he would implicitly obey the orders given by the Khedive. The Khedive immediately issued orders for restoring the public tranquillity. These are the words to which I alluded yesterday—
  "Dervish Pasha said that under the urgent circumstances of the case ho would assume joint responsibility with Arabi Pasha for the execution of the orders of the Khedive."
  The European Consuls then said that the danger to the security of Europeans took precedence over all other questions for the moment, and that the political situation did not enter into the discussion. They also said to the Khedive and the Imperial Commissioners that
  1260
  they thought the discussion that had taken place with regard to the Europeans had nothing to do with the objects of Dervish Pasha's mission in Egypt. That meeting was on Monday.
  MR. ONSLOW: Then why has the Khedive gone to Alexandria?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The hon. Baronet has not noticed my second Question—Whether in the Report made by the British representatives in Egypt to Her Majesty's Government, it was stated that Arabi Pasha was present at the meeting just described?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir, it was so stated. It is a detailed Report, but I have just given the substance to the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: With reference to the measures taken for the preservation of peace in Alexandria, I wish to ask if any steps have been taken towards bringing to justice the Europeans who are reported to have commenced the disturbances by stabbing Arabs?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That Question does not seem to grow out of the one on the Paper, and I am unable to give the House any information on the subject, because I think any information I give should be of a well-founded character.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE HALL OF SCIENCE, OLD STREET.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Vice President of the Council, in reference to his statement that the present teachers of the Science Classes at "Hall of Science" were recognized by the late Government, when Mrs. Besant, Miss Alice, and Hypatia Bradlaugh became qualified to earn grants from public monies for sciences classes taught by them; whether they were returned to the Education Department in 1879 as teachers in classes in the Hall of Science; and, who was the Member of the late Government by whom their application was approved?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, when the application was made in 1879 for the recognition of the science classes at the Hall of Science, the teachers returned were Dr. Aveling, Doctor of Science, London, and B.A. of Cambridge, with Annie Besant and E. Richardson as assistants. When my attention was first called to this matter by the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Henry Tyler) Mrs.

  1261
  Besant and the Misses Bradlaugh were acting as assistants to Dr. Aveling. No change has taken place since that time except that the Misses Bradlaugh have passed the necessary examination for teachers, and have been recognized as such. In reply to the last Question of the hon. Member, my statement on Thursday last was that these classes "were admitted to grants by the late Government." What I wished to convey by that was that they were admitted to grants during the late Administration. I am quite prepared to assume the responsibility for the continuance of the grant, as well as for the recognition of the Misses Bradlaugh as qualified teachers. Under the conditions upon which grants are made, as laid down by the "Science Directory," no Administration would be justified in refusing to recognize these classes or their teachers.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, correct in one sense in stating that the late Government recognized these classes. As I was at that time at the Education Office, perhaps the House will allow me to state what had occurred. Certain rules are laid down as to the recognition of science classes; and if these provisions are complied with, as a matter of course the application is sanctioned. Application, I believe, was made in regard to these classes in the latter months of the last Administration. It was made by a committee, at the head of which was a clergyman of the Church of England, and as it seemed, no doubt, to the officer of the Department that the conditions had been complied with, the application was passed; but neither the Lord President, nor myself, nor any senior permanent official, was aware that any classes had been recognized in connection with the Hall of Science. I do not wish to censure the decision arrived at by the present Government; but what I want to say is this, that that decision was adopted on a full and complete knowledge of all the facts, in the ignorance of which a mere formal sanction was given by the late Government.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have always understood that when anything is done in the Department under my control by my subordinate officers that I am responsible, and I wish distinctly to repeat that until 1881 I knew nothing
  1262
  about these grants until a Question was put to me by the hon. Member for Harwich. Those grants were made while the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) was Vice President of the Council, occupying my position. They were continued for two years, and I find nothing to justify me in withdrawing those grants, and I take all responsibility for their continuance.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. COOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government is now prepared to carry out the long needed extension of the buildings of the National Gallery, in order to give sufficient space, not only for the works of art already in the possession of the Nation, but also for those which may be presented or bequeathed by private individuals; and, whether greater facilities in future will be afforded to the public to visit the National Collection by lighting the Galleries by Electricity on certain evenings in the week?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the Estimates for the current year contain no provision for making an addition to the buildings of the National Gallery. The very heavy expenditure for completing the Natural History Museum and the New Law Courts has prevented the Government from entertaining many other demands in respect of public buildings. With reference to the use of the electric light in the National Gallery, the responsibility rests wholly with the Trustees; but I think they would be wise in waiting the results of experiments in other public buildings, especially as regards their safety.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT—PRISON DISCIPLINE.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will cause an independent, or effectually searching, inquiry to be made into the truth, or otherwise, of the numerous complaints against convict prison management which, for months past, have appeared in the "Civil Service Gazette" and other newspapers, and purporting to be written by the warders of those prisons; and, whether it is true, as recently stated in a letter in the "Times," signed "Assistant War-

  1263
  der," at Chatham, that assaults upon the warders "with the fist, stones, bricks, &c. are of almost daily occurrence?"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, whenever any allegations are brought forward against the management of prisons I always take care that strict inquiry is made into them. For that purpose I have the valuable assistance of Visiting Committees and of the Visitors of the convict prisons, who are entirely independent of the Government. I am happy to say that the Prison Congress the other day gave an unanimous and favourable verdict in favour of the management of prisons. But the prison authorities have a responsible duty in maintaining discipline among the worst classes of society, and I cannot entertain or give credit to anonymous charges in newspapers made by convicts who do not give their names, or by warders who may or may not have been discharged, and who adduce no evidence of what they allege. In my opinion, if I did so I should seriously injure prison discipline, and give encouragement to insubordination.

  THE PENAL SERVITUDE COMMISSION, 1879—SPIKE ISLAND.
  MR. MULHOLLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps are being taken to carry out the recommendation of Lord Kimberley's Commission on Penal Servitude as regards the abolition of Spike Island Convict Prison, and what is the cause of the delay in presenting the Report by the Committee on Convict Labour, appointed some months ago; and, how many times the Committee had met up to the present time?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, as to Spike Island, I have not yet received an answer. The Report of the Committee is in draft, and it will be adopted before the end of the present month.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act, in making out their orders as to judicial rents, are in the habit of specifically defining the items in
  1264
  respect of which deductions for tenants' improvements are made from the rent, under Clause 8, sub-section 9, together with the amount so deducted; and, if he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a specimen Copy of the order made out in such cases?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No, Sir; the Assistant Commissioners do not in their orders fixing fair rents specify the improvements in respect of which deductions from former rents are made, nor do they specify the amount deducted. Each order is accompanied by a Schedule of improvements, but the amount of money added to or deducted from the rent in respect of such improvements is not stated in the Schedule. There is no objection to laying a specimen copy of the order made in such cases on the Table; but it is already published in the Appendix to the Report of the Lords' Committee.

  NAVY—LIABILITY OF OFFICERS—RETIRED PAY.
  MR. ST. AUBYNasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Naval and Marine officers placed upon half-pay since March 1870 are liable to be called upon to serve?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I presume that the Question of the hon. Member refers to officers on retired pay, as all naval officers on half-pay are, of course, liable to servo; and officers of the Royal Marines placed temporarily on half-pay from ill-health, or on reduction of establishment, may also, at any time, be recalled to full pay if fit. With regard to naval officers who have been placed on the Retired List since 1870, it is laid down in Article 254 of the Queen's Regulations that they may be called into active service in case of war or emergency. There is no such definite provision regarding retired Marine officers; but it has never been doubted that, in such circumstances, all who are capable of serving Her Majesty would be ready to do so.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL—THE IRISH CHURCH FUND.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under the scheme for creating a graduated surplus on the Irish Church Fund, showing

  1265
  £85,597 in 1882, and £24,288 in 1918, he proposes to consider the first of the sums, or the last, or what intermediate sum, a safe basis for the further loan to pay land arrears; whether that new loan is to be a sum on which the surplus from the Church Fund is to pay both the interest and a sinking fund; or, if it is to pay only the interest, leaving the repayment to begin after 1918, when £6,674,000 of present liabilities will be extinguished; and, whether, considering that it is only by postponing liabilities, and spreading over thirty-five years annuities and debts to the National Debt Commissioners intended to be paid much sooner, that any surplus at all can be shown or created, he would endeavour, by some extension of the period, to make the surplus sufficient to pay the whole liability under the Arrears Bill, so as to avoid throwing any part of the burden on the British taxpayer?
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state the financial arrangements he proposes to make in order to procure the sum of one million five hundred thousand pounds from the Irish Church Fund for the purposes of the Arrears of Bent (Ireland) Bill, seeing that the charges on the Church Fund under existing arrangements (including the repayment of debt) are in excess of the gross yearly income of the fund for many years to come, and that income is liable to serious reduction from the heavy arrears which are accumulating?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I suppose the first of these Questions is suggested by the Return lately laid on the Table, moved for by the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It has naturally been supposed that the Return gave information that I intended to lay before the House as the basis of the Arrears Bill, so far as the Church Surplus Fund is concerned; but that is not the case. The Return was moved for without the smallest reference to the Arrears Bill. We are preparing information that will be more relevant to the case; and I suggest that it would be more convenient, especially considering the difficulty of giving a clear answer on a subject of this kind, that we should wait for the further Return, which I hope will be in the hands of Members on Monday next.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LOANS TO OCCUPIERS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the practical impossibility of obtaining an opportunity for discussing the restrictions imposed by Treasury Minute of the 21st December, 1881, upon Loans to Occupiers, under sec. 31, Land Act, 1881, he will consent to relax the most onerous of all, namely, that fixing £100 as the minimum sum to be lent?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I can only say at present that it is a very large and important matter that is involved in this Question; it is no less than this, whether the advances to be made by the Treasury in the cases of particular holdings shall assume the character partially of loans and partially of gifts. I do not wish now to express an opinion whether it ought or ought not to be done. In my opinion, it is much too important a subject to be treated as a mere matter of Executive detail. The question was carefully considered some months ago, when my noble Friend Lord Frederick Cavendish—now lost to the country—was Secretary to the Treasury, and the course that has been adopted is the only course we felt authorized to adopt. The subject is one which will be adverted to at a time when a statement is made to the House as to the course the Government advises on this and other points of importance.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the fact, as stated in the press, that the late Mr. Walter Bourke had issued ejectments against such of his tenants (amongst others) as sought to get a fair rent fixed under the Land Act, and that he was about to evict them while their applications were pending; whether the Government have had brought to their knowledge the fact that many tenants who have applied to the Land Courts are meantime threatened with eviction, which must ensue before their cases are decided; and, if he intends to take any steps to protect the interests of such tenants until the Courts have decided upon their applications?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I need not say it was my duty to obtain information

  1267
  on these points from the Irish Government. I understand that the facts are that the agent of the gentleman unfortunately murdered last week, Mr. Bourke, evicted nine families, consisting of 68 persons, for non-payment of rent. All these tenants owed more than two years' rent, one of them nearly seven years' rent, and they refused altogether to pay. It is also stated that they were led to believe that the Land League would see after their rents, and provide them with huts. It is likewise stated that there were no special hardships in these cases. In Galway, Mr. Bourke issued ejectments against five tenants, of whom two subsequently appealed to the Land Court. It was on his return from attending the place where the tenants who appealed did not appear that he was shot. In Mayo ejectment decrees are pending against several tenants; but we have not sufficient information in respect to those decrees, nor have we, nor can we have, general information of the number of tenants who, having applied to the Land Courts, are threatened with eviction. Tenants so threatened can apply to the County Court of the district in which the execution is issued, for the purpose of having the execution stayed. I believe the provision of the law in that respect ought to be sufficient. With regard to the general question as to the stoppage of evictions, I have to repeat to the House that the only mode in which we can shorten the painful proceedings going on, and to some extent, of necessity, going on in Ireland, is by earnestly recommending and entreating the House to make progress and dispatch with the Bills we have now in hand. Every day adds, on the average, 20 to the number of evicted families, or 120 a-week, subject to deductions which I cannot exactly state, on account of those who may be replaced as caretakers. That is going on, and must go on, and we have not the power to check it, even if it were right we should, on which I do not give an opinion at present. I do think the House will feel, without distinction of sections or Parties, that this is a most powerful reason for our endeavouring to get forward with the legislation in hand, in order that the numerous persons who are in arrear and who are unable to pay their rents may have the opportunity of reaching a better and more secure position.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the Irish Government can give any information as to the number of tenants whom Mr. Walter Bourke sold out in the county of Mayo before the passing of the Land Act, and so deprived of the legal value of their holdings or title to the protection of the Court. With reference to the appeal of the Prime Minister to expedite the passing of the—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information from the Irish Government on the subject of Mr. Bourke and his property, except that which I have given; but if the hon. Member will put down the particulars, or let me have them, I will take care to cause inquiry to be made.
  MR. HEALY: The facts which have been stated as to the evictions going on and the manner of carrying them out, suggests a Question which I desire to address to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, Whether, as a number of new crimes are being invented by the Prevention of Crimes Bill, he could not include a clause making harsh and cruel evictions of the character which the Chief Secretary for Ireland described yesterday a crime punishable in the same way as "Boycotting?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member does not require to be told that the proper time for proposing a new clause is when the Bill is in Committee.

  EGYPT AND ITALY—CESSION OF ASSAB BAY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with regard to his statement relating to Assab Bay, Her Majesty's Government have recommended the Government of Egypt to agree to the demand of Italy with regard to that harbour; and, what is the exact position of the negotiations on the subject of the Italian establishment at Assab, and of the projected Convention between the Italian and Egyptian Governments? The hon. Member further asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a Bill was presented in the Roman Chamber by Signor Mancini, on the 12th of June, with reference to the Italian establishment in Assab Bay, which declared it to be an Italian colony, made it a free port, exempted the natives from taxation for 30 years,

  1269
  declared that their religion would be respected, and gave the Italian Government the right of making concessions of land and concluding treaties with neighbouring rulers; and, whether, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his previous answer that there has been no recent cession of Assab Bay to the Italians?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the hon. Member has taken a most extraordinary course. He has asked the Prime Minister a long Question on foreign policy without giving any Notice of it. I must say that anything more remarkable I have never seen in all my experience.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The statement to which I referred has only just appeared; but as it was antecedent to the answer of the Prime Minister that no cession had been made of Assab Bay, or that, at all events, the Government were not cognizant of any cession, I thought I was in Order in pointing out a want of knowledge on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Gentleman has given no reason whatever for not putting the Question on the Notice Paper. ["Order!"] He has not given any shadow of a reason. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] More extraordinary conduct—
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I must appeal to you, Sir, whether the hon. Baronet is in Order in using such language?
  MR. SPEAKER: If I understand the hon. Baronet correctly, he desires that the Question should be put on the Paper. If so, he is within his right.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I was alluding, not to the Question being put on the Paper, but to the censure which the hon. Baronet made.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I not only must maintain that censure, but I must increase it.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I must appeal to you, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not interfere with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Greenwich, as I did not think it was out of Order; but in so far as he puts a Question which is not on the Paper, the hon. Baronet has a perfect right to complain of that part of the Question which was put without Notice.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: My hon. Friend called your attention, Sir, not to the hon. Baronet declining to answer the Question, but to the terms of censure which he used.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have said, Sir, that I have never known anything more extraordinary than the course taken by the hon. Member with regard to this Question; and I was going on to say, when I was interrupted, that I not only maintain the censure which I gave at first—[Loud cries of "Order!"and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that if any hon. Member, in putting a Question, which he does entirely within his own right, is subject to censure, that censure should come from the Chair.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The censure, Sir—[Loud cries of "Withdraw!"] In consequence of repeated interruptions, I have never been allowed to finish my sentence. The course adopted by the hon. Member, to which I wish to call attention, began with the Question of which he gave public Notice to the Prime Minister about 10 days ago. The hon. Member wished to ask whether the Prime Minister was aware of the fact that Her Majesty's Government had recently ceded Assab Bay to Italy? These words were struck out at the Table, after public Notice was given; and I am very sorry the Question was so altered, because the Prime Minister would have been able to have made a most indignant reply to the Question in the form in which public Notice was given.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I rise to Order. I never stated anything of the sort.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not speaking of the Question which appeared on the Paper, but of the previous Question.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I have a copy of it here. I was perfectly cognizant of the fact that the British Government could not cede Assab Bay to Italy, as it did not belong to the British Government. The words of my Question were these—"And also in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy;" but not by Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was speaking, not of the terms of the Question as it was put on the Paper, but of

  1271
  the terms of the Question as it was originally given by the hon. Member, and as it was first printed.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to repeat, Sir, that I never said anything of the sort.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I must ask the hon. Member to reserve his desire for further knowledge of the details until the Papers, which we are now bringing out rapidly, are laid upon the Table. I would remind the hon. Member that three weeks ago I answered the Question as it now stands on the Paper.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to give Notice, Sir, that in consequence of the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I shall, on the earliest opportunity, draw the attention of the House to this subject, and move a Resolution. As I cannot allow these words to go uncontroverted, I may state that the Question which I put today is not in the least degree similar to the one which the hon. Baronet answered last week.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question to which I referred was asked by the hon. Member several weeks ago, and led to a discussion across the Table between my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Bourke) and myself. My right hon. Friend said that the Italian flag was not flying at Assab Bay when the late Government left Office. I said it was flying there when the late Government left Office, and that was the case.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I will repeat my Question on Monday.
  MR. BOURKE: I never suggested that the late Government gave their sanction to the cession of Assab Bay—quite the reverse.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The present Government also have done nothing with regard to the cession of Assab Bay. They proposed an agreement between Turkey, Italy, and Egypt on the subject. That was declined. It fell to the ground, and nothing whatever was done.
  MR. BOURKE: Did not you recommend the Khedive to cede Assab Bay?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Italians were already at Assab Bay at the time when the late Government went out of Office. We recommended that
  1272
  the position should be "regularized," and that there should be an agreement between the Porte, the Khedive, and the Italian Government on the subject. That agreement was declined. It never came to anything, and nothing whatever was done.
  MR. BOURKErose, amid cries of "Chair!"and "Order!" to make some further remarks, when—
  MR. SPEAKER: The House will, perhaps, allow me to say that in Questions of this character Notice should be given.

  PARLIAMENT—SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will consider the expediency of suspending the Half-past Twelve Standing Order for the remainder of the Session, and thus give the Scotch Members an opportunity of forwarding measures interesting to that part of the United Kingdom, and not affecting England and Ireland, in those sixteen hours formerly appropriated to the business of the House, but of which it is deprived by the Standing Order in question?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would like to ask, also, Whether there was any truth in the statement that it was proposed to send Scotch Business to a Committee of Scotch Members, so as to enable those Gentlemen to deal with it in the day-time instead of the dead of night, before the breakfast hour?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am very sensible of the importance of the subject, and I do not wonder that he should put the Question just as if he were in despair; but I must own that to ask the Government to abolish the Half-past Twelve Rule at the present moment is only asking them to add another subject of discussion to the subjects we have already in hand—when the time at their disposal, and at the disposal of the House, is unfortunately very inadequate for its immediate purposes. With respect to the rumour inquired about by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), I should have thought, Sir, if there were any truth in its being intended to make a proposal of this kind, the proposal would have appeared in due course upon the Notice Paper of the House. All I have to say upon this subject at present

  1273
  is that the Government are very ready indeed to receive any suggestion that can be made of a practical character upon this Question, and that it is one to which, undoubtedly, they will give their own serious attention at the earliest moment when they can bring any results of their consideration into a practical form.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the desirability of committing the Irish Coercion Bill to a general Committee of Irish Members?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I have no intention of doing that, and I think it would be irregular, under the circumstances; but I may observe, that if I did, the fact would appear that it is only a small minority of Irish Members who oppose the Bill.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE—DUTIES ON GOLD AND SILVER PLATE.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the serious depression of the silver trade, owing to the uncertainty prevailing in the minds of manufacturers and dealers respecting the duties upon gold and silver plate, and, seeing the various objections to the grant of a drawback upon existing stocks, and, seeing that no drawback has been allowed in the case of holders of duty-paid stocks of cotton and other European goods in India, who have had to sacrifice very largely under the recent Budget, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to adhere to their determination not to abolish the duties in the present Session of Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, there is a good deal in the suggestion evidently meant to be conveyed by this Question; but I believe, as far as my knowledge and means of forming a judgment goes, that the mode indicated by the hon. Gentleman is the only mode out of the embarrassment attending this subject. But, considering the time of the year, and that nearly two months have elapsed since the financial plans of the Government were announced, I do not think anything but the prevalence of a general wish will justify Her Majesty's Government in making a proposal on the subject at the present time.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—THE HAMILTON PALACE COLLECTION.
  MR. COOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the sale of the Hamilton Palace Collection, to secure to the Nation some of the unrivalled works of art contained in it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the subject is one to which the attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery has been carefully directed, as is known to me by their Correspondence with the Treasury, which will, I think, shortly reach its conclusion.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. STOREYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the large increase in the number of evictions in Ireland, he will take immediate steps to introduce a Bill temporarily to stop evictions, or will give special facilities for the discussion of the Bill of the honourable and gallant Member for Galway?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that to expedite our proceedings is the only manner in which we can possibly act in a beneficial way in this question. With that view, it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the experience we have had, to ask the House to hold a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and on Fridays, during the present pressure of Business. When that is over we shall see how we stand. Moreover, it is my intention to move to-morrow—which I may as well mention publicly now—that the Arrears (Ireland) Bill do take precedence on all days when it is set down for discussion of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When that Motion is made, I shall ask the Government for some general account of what Business they intend to take besides that.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to give Notice that, when the right hon. Gentleman makes that Motion, I shall ask the Government to give facilities for the discussion of the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill this Session, as that

  1275
  measure is awaited with so much anxiety by great numbers of farmers.

  ADULTERATION ACTS—LARD CHEESE.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether, in an answer given on Monday last, he had not attributed to Lord Vernon language which had really been used by the President of the Royal Agricultural Society?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have had the advantage of a conversation with Lord Vernon, and I am glad of an opportunity of correcting a mistake which seems to have caused Lord Vernon some little annoyance. It appears that the words which I quoted as having been spoken by Lord Vernon at a meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society were really spoken by the President, Mr. Dent. The mistake arose in this way. The Report from which I derived my information put these remarks down to the President, having previously spoken of Lord Vernon as Chairman, and hence my mistake. These remarks were to the effect that the introduction of lard or oleomargarine would enable dairy companies to work up their skim milk into a wholesome article of food; that the Council should be careful before writing to request the interference of the Board of Trade, as it was a question whether the public were not benefited by such forms of cheap and wholesome food. I am very glad to have the opinion of so eminent an authority as the President of the Royal Agricultural Society on this subject; and I may say that, from all the information I have been able to get, I am inclined to agree entirely with his view. These remarks were made by the President before Dr. Voelcker's Report, but after a statement by Dr. Voelcker, which his subsequent Report confirmed, that these cheeses were perfectly wholesome food. The letter from the Royal Agricultural Society was received on the 9th of June.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTgave Notice that, on Monday next, he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as he had stated that anarchy would not be allowed to continue in
  1276
  Egypt, he had seen the report of a speech made by the Italian Foreign Minister, to the effect that Italy would not consent to the armed intervention of certain Powers, and whether that referred to England and France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I shall not be able to answer the Question more fully on Monday than I can answer it now. I can assure the hon. Member that the Italian Government is acting completely in concert with Her Majesty's Government in the steps that are being taken at Constantinople. I think it only courteous to add that the Government always declines to discuss what is said by foreign Ministers in foreign Assemblies.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the hon. Baronet a Question already put to him by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), but which he did not answer—namely, Whether a requisition has been made by the Khedive or Dervish Pasha that 18,000 Turkish troops should at once be sent to Alexandria from Constantinople? If that is the case, it would take some days before those troops could arrive; and I should like to know, in the present position of affairs, whether, supposing an outbreak, which is said to be imminent at any moment, should occur, and supposing the Egyptian troops should also rise against the European inhabitants, what steps Her Majesty's Government have ordered to be taken in that event?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The reason I did not answer the hon. Member for Roscommon was that I did not hear his Question.
  MR. HEALY: The hon. Member asked it twice.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I assure the hon. Member I did not hear the terms of it. With regard to the Question just put, a portion of it I am unable to answer. I believe Dervish has on several occasions asked for troops, but I cannot state precisely the number of Turkish troops that have been applied for. It is not in my power to answer the other portion of the Question.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that Dervish Pasha has asked for Turkish troops, and the European Powers have concurred?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I really cannot give any answer. There are still

  1277
  measures being taken by the European Powers at Constantinople in reference to the steps to be taken in Egypt. I cannot answer further.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: May we not get some assurance from the Government that some steps will, at any rate, be taken to protect the European population in Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated that there is a large force of men-of-war at Alexandria, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has a large force, which he is empowered to land. No doubt, instructions have been given to some of the foreign admirals to a like effect. It is also probable that seamen and marines will also be landed. Besides the Squadron at Alexandria, five ships, the .Minotaur, the Achilles, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, and the Sultan, left Gibraltar for Malta at 7 o'clock this morning under Sir Beau-champ Seymour's orders.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Are we to understand distinctly from the Government that in the event of there being any fear of further massacres at Alexandria sailors and marines will be landed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The measures upon which Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Edward Malet may agree will be carried into effect; but I cannot anticipate them. Those on the spot are far better able to judge of the steps to be taken than we can be.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Is it not the fact that even the five ships to be added to the Fleet at Alexandria will not make them capable of landing 1,000 men? Is it not the case, also, that those ships are of too great draught to enter the harbour at Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have already refused to go into detail on those matters; but I believe it is the fact that considerably more than 1,000 men might be landed.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—UN-PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I regret to have to rise, Sir, to bring a matter of Privilege before the House. After the Vice President of the Council had answered a Question asked by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), sitting below me, said aloud,
  1278
  "What a miserable hound that Lord George Hamilton is!" I instantly said, "That is very improper language to use, and especially in the hearing of other Members." Upon this the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) said, "He is an eavesdropper." The remark was made in so loud a tone, that I think it must have been heard by Members sitting behind and around. I said, "That remark is equally improper"—
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is really a question of Privilege.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member was pointing out the state of disorder which lately arose in the House.
  MR. MACARTNEY: No, Sir; I was calling attention to the remarks I heard.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, no doubt, should properly have taken notice of those remarks at the time. I believe the hon. Gentleman did rise, but I did not call upon him. If that is so, I think he is quite entitled to call the attention of the House to the matter.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I rise simply to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), and to ask him whether it is conducive to the dignity of the House that such a matter as this should be discussed? If one hon. Member in conversation chooses to apply opprobrious language to another, so much the worse for him.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I regret that I should have annoyed my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex, but I thought the language was so unjustifiable that it ought to be taken notice of. Not only was that language used, but when I complained the hon. Member for Roscommon told me that I was an eavesdropper. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether we who sit here in a mixed Party—[A laugh]—very much mixed, I think—should be subjected to have these kind of remarks made out aloud in our hearing?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the House may desire to know from the hon. Members, whose language has been called in question, whether that language has been properly attributed to them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In a private conversation addressed to an hon. Friend sitting two places from me, I made use of certain observations.

  1279
  These were not addressed to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), and when he wished to discuss with me those observations I declined; and then he, apparently much irritated, threatened to appeal to you, Sir. I told him he was at liberty to do so.
  MR. O'KELLY: When the hon. Member for Tyrone interfered in a conversation which was not directed to him, and with which he had practically nothing at all to do, threatening to call the attention of the House to the matter, I did say to him that he was acting the part of an eavesdropper, because I considered that the conversation, not being addressed to him, he had no reason to intervene.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will expect the hon. Members to express regret, because, although these observations were not made openly, still they were made in this House, where hon. Members are accustomed to speak of one another with respect. I am persuaded that the hon. Members, when they come to reflect upon the matter, will think it right to withdraw their observations.
  MR. O'KELLY: So far as I am concerned, I will express my regret to the House for having made use of the observations.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I shall not have the least hesitation in withdrawing any expression I have made use of, and which may be considered to be improper. But I may be allowed to say that the account given of the observations by the hon. Member was not altogether correct. However, whatever the expressions were which hon. Members sitting around me reasonably think they have a right to complain of, I willingly withdraw them.

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 14th June.]
[TWELFTH NIGHT.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART II.

  OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT.
  Clause 7 (Illegal meetings).
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "which," to the word "safety," in line 16, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'which he has reason to believe 'stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he entertained a hope that the Government would accept this reasonable Amendment. Should they not do so, he did not think it was necessary to expend a very long time in discussing the matter. The Prime Minister had said that if there were Members in that House who considered that evictions were crimes—and there certainly were persons in that House who considered evictions to be crimes—the proper time for bringing forward a provision for putting a stop to such evictions would be during the Committee on this Bill. He confessed that ho entertained a hope that before long they would come to some clause which would, at any rate, justify some action in that direction on the part of the Committee. In regard to this clause, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the Bill would give no fresh powers to the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Lord Lieutenant at present could proclaim any meeting; but it was a very serious question whether the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, or whether the Executive in England, should have a right to intervene in a legally constituted public meeting. The Lord Lieutenant had assumed that right; but it was very doubtful whether he himself, and the police who acted in consequence of a proclamation of that kind, would not be liable to an action. But, be that as it might, he contended that the Bill itself made a distinction. According to this Bill, not only might the Lord Lieutenant proclaim a meeting which he had reason to think dangerous to the safety of the public, but he might punish, under the provisions of the Bill, anyone who attended that meeting. Now, that was a power which he did not possess at present, and it seemed to him a fair

  1281
  and reasonable thing that when anyone was arrested and brought before a magistrate for attending a public meeting, he should have the right to raise the question whether the meeting was convened for an unlawful purpose, or for the purpose of carrying out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously. That was the simple object of his Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he gathered from the expressions made use of by the hon. Member that he intended to persevere with this Amendment. Personally, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, because it sought to limit the power the Lord Lieutenant at present had by law. He objected very much to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and he should have been prepared to vote for an Amendment upon it in regard to the punishment; but he objected to the proposal of his hon. Friend, on the ground of the restriction it placed on the power of the Lord Lieutenant. He certainly thought that the power possessed by the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the prohibition of public meetings at the present moment was sufficient; but as the Amendment restricted that power he was unable to support it.
  MR. MARUMsaid, the law as to public meetings was the same both in England and Ireland, and it had been recently held by English Judges in the case of the Salvation Army riots at Weston-super-Mare that if a meeting held for a lawful purpose were interfered with by other persons, it was for the Government to prevent that interference. In the case in question, certain persons attended a meeting of the Salvation Army, and met another army in the same town. There was a free fight, and they overpowered the constables. The matter was brought before the local magistrates, who issued a circular in the nature of a proclamation, prohibiting another meeting of the Salvation Army in consequence of the previous fight which had taken place, anticipating that a similar occurrence might happen again. The question was submitted to a Superior Court whether, under the circumstances of the case, the magistrates were justified in issuing that prohibition, and Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Cave gave a lucid Judgment, in which they held the magistrates were not justified under the circumstances in the action they took, but that it was the
  1282
  duty of the Executive to have a sufficient force in the town to preserve the peace, and that the fact of a large procession going through the town drawing together a considerable number of persons, if its object was peaceable, had a legal right to hold that meeting. The Judges, therefore, quashed the conviction; and he gathered that the law of England, in consequence of that decision, was that a lawful meeting could be held for a lawful purpose, and that if it were so interfered with by any other persons it was the duty of the Government to prevent the interference. In his opinion, it was an extremely doubtful matter whether, in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, or the Executive, were justified in the proclamations they had issued hitherto; and there was no wonder, under these circumstances, that it had been thought necessary to bring forward a specific clause to enable the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit public as well as private meetings. It seemed to have been forgotten that under the previous sections of this Bill very large powers had been conferred. Any person who took part in an unlawful assembly was liable to the penalties of the Act; and not only that, but any person, by act or words spoken, would fall within the provisions of the 4th section, so that an influence of a very potent character would be exercised upon any person who desired to attend a public meeting. If a man went to a meeting quite innocently, and it turned out to be an unlawful one, or if words were spoken or acts done of a certain character, he would have rendered himself liable to very serious penalties. These were matters that should be taken into consideration when they had to consider that the Lord Lieutenant, of his own caprice, without any control, was to be able to stop any public meeting in Ireland. Yesterday, in discussing the question, it seemed to have been forgotten that they had already passed the 4th and 5th sections of the Bill, and that they would be in full force and effect. He asked why it was necessary that the arbitrary powers conferred by this clause should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant? He knew that they must bow to the inevitable, and that the section would pass, and his observations were hardly directed against a refusal of this power, because, as he said, it was inevitable that it would be given. But

  1283
  the object of his Amendment was to restrict the powers of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had very properly brought forward the fact that under the section—
  "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which be has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety."
  In the decision he (Mr. Marum) had alluded to at the commencement of his observations—namely, the Weston-super-Mare case—it was distinctly laid down by the Judges that although in the opinion of the magistrates the public safety and the public peace were in danger, nevertheless the magistrates were not authorized to issue a proclamation prohibiting a contemplated meeting, so that they might prevent similar riots. It was, therefore, established that an apprehension in regard to the public safety, or of the commission of a breach of the peace, was not sufficient in Common Law to authorize the issue of a proclamation of this kind. He did not know whether it was intended by the words "public safety" to include anything beyond the public peace. The section said "the public peace or the public safety;" but it was not questioned whether public safety meant anything more than public peace. His remarks on the present Amendment would render unnecessary any lengthened observations on the next Amendment which stood in his name, which was to the effect that no proclamation should take effect except on a sworn information in writing.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that in considering the Amendment they ought to have regard to what the exact state of the law was. At the present moment, under the existing law, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, as had been stated by the Attorney General, empowered to prohibit a meeting; but he (Mr. P. Martin) submitted that under the existing law, if the Lord Lieutenant prohibited a meeting, it was competent for any person who had attended that meeting, if indicted in a Court of Justice, to question the legality of the proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant. No doubt, it was the duty of every subject of the Queen, when he came to the meeting and found such a proclamation had been issued, to leave
  1284
  the meeting at once; but he was still at liberty to question, if prosecuted, the legality of the proclamation. The learned Attorney General for England (Sir Henry James) might recollect that in the celebrated case of the prosecution against Mr. O'Connell the legality of what was known as the celebrated proclamation of Clontarf had been strongly questioned. The Act of 1833 had been referred to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The framers of the Act of 1833 knew that the law was as he (Mr. P. Martin) had stated it; and on referring to the 2nd section of that Act, it would be found that when, for the first time, power was given to the Lord Lieutenant, by Statute, to make this proclamation, it was prescribed that persons attending a proclaimed meeting should be guilty of a statutable misdemeanour, and indictable at Common Law only after notice given and knowledge. It was only in that way, even under the Act of 1833, stringent as that Act was, that punishment was inflicted upon any person who was present at a meeting which had been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. What was proposed to be done by this Bill, if it passed into an Act, was totally and entirely different. What was stated in this section was that—
  "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety."
  Therefore, it would be incompetent for anyone to question anything except the fact that the meeting was proclaimed, and that it took place. The section went on to say that—
  "Any person who is present at a meeting prohibited in pursuance of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  Under that clause, the Lord Lieutenant had power to prohibit a meeting that was perfectly legal and justifiable; but a person attending it would be liable to six months' imprisonment. It would apply even to a meeting that took place in a vestry of a chapel in Ireland. Suppose such a meeting was called for 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed it at 10 minutes past 4, any person who was present at the meeting, whether he knew of the proclamation or not, was at once, under

  1285
  this section, if it were passed into law, made guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment with hard labour. There was nothing in the section to provide that a guilty knowledge should be brought home to the accused. Therefore, the clause did two things—it did away with the protection which existed under the present law of a right to question the ground on which the proclamation was issued; and it went further, and enabled a person to be convicted of an offence, for which the penalty was six months' imprisonment with hard labour, although at the time he attended the meeting ho might not have been aware of the existence of such proclamation. The Act of 1833 was extremely stringent, but it contained no provision as stringent as this. Under the Act of 1833 a person present at a proclaimed meeting must first be requested to leave, and it was only after refusing to leave that he was liable to be indicted at Common Law for a misdemeanour. They all knew that the Act of 1833 was an Act which had always been looked upon as the most unjust and tyrannical measure which had ever been placed on the Statute Book, and so unjust and tyrannical that the Parliament which passed it had to modify it the very next year. But even in that Act the injustice which might be inflicted under the operation of the present clause could not have been committed.
  THE CHAIRMANwished to point out to the hon. and learned Member that he was speaking against the entire clause, upon which there were a number of Amendments, and that he was altogether departing from the Amendment now before the Committee.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had not understood the drift of his argument. Perhaps he had been enlarging a little unnecessarily; but he was illustrating the evil effect of allowing the present words to remain without amendment in the Bill, and desired to show that if the clause was to remain without the Amendment in its present state, it would be contrary to all precedent, and not be in accordance even with the Act of 1833.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, there were various Amendments upon the Paper, which would come on for discussion in
  1286
  regular order; but the hon. and learned Member was at present discussing the whole clause.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he did not intend to do so, and if he had transgressed he regretted it. The object of the Amendment, he conceived, was to safeguard the clause, by making it necessary, in case of prosecution, that the Executive should be bound to prove that the meeting was in fact what was recognized in law as an illegal meeting. To show the necessity for some such protection for persons who might be innocent, he had considered it desirable to show what would be the practical working of the clause in its present form, unamended, and the evil effects of permitting the mere belief of the Lord Lieutenant, even though it could be shown that belief was unreasonable and ill-founded to subject any persons who attended to liability to six months. It was in aid of the view ho desired to present that he had alluded to the Act of 1833, which, as he had stated, did not make the fact of attendance criminal until notice had been given to the persons present at the meeting; and he had then been going on to illustrate that the punishment, even after guilty knowledge was established, was simply by indictment under the Common Law, with the protection of a jury. No doubt there was considerable difficulty in discussing an Amendment of this character when there were a number of other Amendments upon it.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he ventured to express an earnest hope that the Government would listen to the very moderate proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken showed that the clause placed great additional power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. They were now giving powers of a most arbitrary character, together with a summary penalty upon people who attended public meetings. The Act of 1833 did not give such powers, and he confessed that he did not like to leave it absolutely to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant upon a penal question of this sort. He thought there ought to be a definition, and a hard line drawn, as to what was to constitute an illegal meeting, and that it ought not to be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. He, therefore, appealed to Her Majesty's

  1287
  Government to modify the clause in the direction of the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He did not like the Bill at all, and he certainly did not like this clause; but, at the same time, he thought this clause would be made much more acceptable, and much more workable, and much more efficient if the feelings and traditions of the Supporters of Her Majesty's Government on that side of the House were studied by agreeing to a modification of it. Therefore, even now, at the last hour, he would venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the clause, and accede to the very moderate demand his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) had made.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it appeared to him that if Her Majesty's Government on their responsibility had announced that the Irish Executive considered the clause to be necessary, it was hardly worth while to entertain Amendments such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). What would be the effect of the proposal now made? The hon. Member proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, who could now prohibit meetings at discretion, should not be able to do so unless he was in a position to prove that they would be dangerous to public safety. ["No, no!"] He had before him the Amendment, which proposed to leave out the words—
  "Which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety,"
  in order to insert the words—
  "Convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously."
  It seemed to him that that would make it a matter of the greatest difficulty to stop the meetings which, in the opinion of the Government, were dangerous to the public safety. It must be borne in mind that meetings were not always ostensibly and openly convened for the purpose they were designed to carry out. A meeting was not unfrequently ostensibly convened for a comparatively harmless object; but, in the opinion of the Government, it might not be safe, in the interest of the security of the State, that an excited meeting in a particular locality should take place at all. Her Majesty's Government, stated on the
  1288
  authority of the Lord Lieutenant, that he and those who advised him attached the greatest importance to this clause. The clause itself, he would fairly admit, was a matter for argument, and whether a Bill of this kind should be passed at all was undoubtedly a fair matter for difference of opinion. His own opinion was that it was most desirable to pass a Bill upon these lines; but, of course, hon. Members below the Gangway held a different opinion, approaching the question as they did from an entirely different standpoint. But he trusted that those who wished—as he understood the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) to wish—the Bill to be passed into law would not lend their countenance and support to an Amendment which could have no other effect than to render the clause practically unworkable and useless. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the Committee would not accept any Amendment of this kind.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) asserted that the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to make the clause practically useless for all purposes in Ireland. What he wished to point out to the right hon. Member was this. If the clause were modified according to the wish of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the present power of the Lord Lieutenant would still be retained in its entirety. What the hon. Member for Northampton wished to do was this—he wanted to draw a clear definition between meetings convened for an unlawful purpose, and meetings convened with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously, and a class of other meetings which might take place in Ireland, and which had taken place in Ireland. He might give an illustration, which ought to come home to the Treasury Bench. There was a meeting in Hyde Park in favour of Reform in 1866. That was a meeting which the Government of the day prohibited; but it was a meeting which nevertheless was held, and it was held in defiance of the action of the Government, the leaders of the Reform movement stating their intention of contesting the legality of the prohibition. Would the late Chief Secretary for Ireland say that, in regard to such meetings as that, the legality of which might be freely asserted, it was reasonable to pro-

  1289
  vide that every person who attended them was to be liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was one which he thought the Government might reasonably accept. If there was a meeting for an unlawful purpose, or a meeting with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously, then let them take the power to prohibit it, and also the power to send a man who attended it to gaol for six months. He did not mean to say, personally, that he agreed even with that. He thought there ought to be a further limitation—namely, in the case of meetings which might have ended in tumult, but which might not have been called for the purpose of tumult. He thought it would be very unfair to send men to gaol for attending a meeting of that kind. He had listened to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he suggested to the Committee that they might fairly trust the Irish Executive Government; but the right hon. Gentleman was unable to tell them that the Government which might succeed the present one might not act very differently from the manner in which the present Government would act. He should like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the words of his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who said that there were two grounds on which a meeting ought to be dispersed—one was danger to individuals attending them, and the other was that, directly or indirectly, they might be the occasion of an excitement that would probably lead to a breach of the peace. Now, he had sat upon the Bench in the North of England, and he understood what it was to have a meeting prohibited, because it was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace; but he was prepared to say that no public meeting had been held in a time of excitement in the North of England, or in any part of England, which could not have been prohibited, according to the elastic definition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—namely, a meeting which led, either directly or indirectly, to excitement which might end in a breach of the peace. He would ask what wore all their public meetings if they were worthy of the
  1290
  name of public meetings at all, and were to have any influence upon public affairs? All their meetings were full of excitement; they were unable to make any effect upon Parliament until a time of excitement came, and it was the same in Ireland, and yet, according to a Liberal Ministry, and to a late Liberal Chief Secretary for Ireland, they ought to prohibit meetings upon such a ground as this; but he had never understood the late Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that he would hold for a moment that if a man attended such a meeting as that, even if it were prohibited, he ought to be liable to six months' imprisonment, and be deprived of the right of contesting the prohibition of the meeting. Under these circumstances, he pressed upon the Government, though probably he and his Friends who entertained the same view were almost helpless in the matter, that they should reconsider their decision with regard to this Amendment. No doubt those who supported it were few in number; but, nevertheless, they pressed upon the Government, having regard to their own declarations in past days, and to the danger which might possibly arise if the clause passed in its present form, that they should accept some modification in the clause as it stood at present.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought it would be far better to negative the clause altogether than to make it perfectly nugatory and useless, as would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It was altogether beside the mark to say that such a clause as this was not wanted in England. They all knew that perfectly well. Nor would it apply to such meetings as that which was presided over the other day in Hyde Park by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). Everybody knew that the feeling of the community in England was on the side of the law, and, therefore, meetings might be held without danger in this country which would be altogether unsafe under the present condition of Ireland. It was upon that ground that meetings had been prohibited within the last two years in Ireland, and upon that ground alone. He complained that the same arguments were urged over and over again. The opinion of the Government was that the powers which wore taken

  1291
  in the year 1833 were necessary at the present day. He fully understood that hon. Members opposite were not of that opinion; but the Government did not obviously share that view, or they would never have introduced the present Bill.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, there was a definition of prohibition in the Act of 1833.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the definition of prohibition was that public notice should be given, and a similar definition was given in this clause—namely, that it should be a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant had reason to believe "to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety." There was quite as much necessity to take such powers as there were in the year 1833. The Irish Executive were of opinion that the powers were necessary, and that they should not be confined to meetings convened for an unlawful purpose; but it was not likely that meetings would be made public which were convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously or tumultuously, and, therefore, the Government could not accept the words of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). There might be many meetings held which it was desirable to prohibit altogether outside the terms of the hon. Member's Amendment. No doubt such a ground would be the ordinary ground for magisterial intervention in England; but the Government had never pretended or claimed that they desired to deal with such cases in Ireland. They ashed for exceptional powers hero to deal with an exceptional danger. It was highly probable that meetings might be convened for an unlawful purpose at which the language used might be of such an inflammatory character as to lead to evil results; and they felt that it ought to be within the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, who was the person responsible for the public safety in Ireland, to prohibit such a meeting. He wished hon. Members opposite to understand clearly that, in the view of the Government, it was perfectly idle to expect that they could depart from the principle they had laid down in this clause, or accept Amendments which would, in point of fact, entirely defeat the object of the Bill.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the Home Secretary had misled the Committee as to what the practical effect of adopting the Amendment would be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that if the Amendment were adopted the offence which the clause dealt with would have to be brought under the purview of a jury. Now, the Amendment only struck out the words—
  "Which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace and the public safety;"
  and it provided that the Lord Lieutenant might prohibit any meeting—
  "Convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously;"
  and it provided that any person who was present at such a meeting so prohibited should be guilty of an offence under the Act. Therefore, the adoption of the Amendment would not place any offence against the Act under the purview of a jury.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I never said that it would.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had not asserted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said so, because if he had said so in expressed terms he would have intentionally misled the Committee; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done so unintentionally, because he had pointed out that no jury would find a person guilty; and, therefore, he had led the Committee to believe that if they accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) they would place the matter under the purview of a jury. According to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), the Lord Lieutenant would be able to prohibit any meeting convened for an unlawful purpose, or with an intent to carry out a lawful object riotously and tumultuously. And how was that intent to be ascertained? Had they not their Clifford Lloyds, and their County Inspectors Smiths, and their Sub-Inspectors to swear informations that they believed such meetings were convened for an unlawful purpose, and with intent to carry out illegal objects, and in that case the Lord Lieutenant would have full power to prohibit them. Anyone attending such a meeting would come under the Act, and would be taken away

  1293
  from the protecting influence of a jury. It was perfectly clear that if the Committee adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) the Lord Lieutenant would still have full power to suppress any meeting called for an unlawful purpose, or to carry out any unlawful object riotously and tumultuously. They had 300 police officials in Ireland—Sub-Inspectors who would be prepared to swear to any intent that might suit the purpose of the Government. The Home Secretary said that if they adopted the Amendment it would defeat the object the Government had in inserting this clause. He could only gather that that object was to suppress all public meetings in Ireland for the next three years, and to place them completely and entirely at the mercy of the Castle officials; and, under these circumstances, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had just told the Committee that certain liberties of speech and action on the part of Her Majesty's subjects could be tolerated in this country, because the feeling here was on the side of the law. Why was the feeling here on the side of the law? It was for a very simple reason—because the law was on the side of the people, because the law was tender of public rights, and because the law was a safeguard of public liberty. Therefore, the feeling in England was, to a very great degree, on the side of the law. If the same treatment were extended to Ireland it would be soon seen that the feelings of the people there would be on the side of the law; but the law in Ireland had been, and was every day being made, the enemy of liberty, the enemy of public right, the enemy of freedom of speech, and of freedom of action—aye, and of freedom of thought, if the law could reach that. Under these circumstances, was it wonderful if the feeling of the people of Ireland was not altogether on the side of the law? If they treated the people of England to the same law that they gave to the Irish people, they would refuse to submit to it; and they would then see whether the feeling of the English people would be on the side of the law. Let them treat the people of England to the Protection of Person and Property Acts; lot them treat the people of England to a measure like
  1294
  this; let them treat the people of England to any one of the five coercion measures which had been brought forward since the date of the Act of Union, and then they would see if the feeling of the people of England would be on the side of the law. The feeling of the people of Ireland was what the law of England had made it. It had made it incumbent on every high-spirited man in Ireland to have no feeling on the side of the law, except in so far as the law might be in accord with justice and morality.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was getting very general in his remarks. He ought to recollect that there was a particular Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not contest the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman; but he had been replying to words which had fallen from the Home Secretary, and he thought the Irish Members ought to be free to reply to arguments such as those which had been brought forward on the part of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had allowed the hon. Member a considerable amount of latitude; but he was now going into a general disquisition, which was not covered by the Amendment.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies were under great difficulties, and, of course, they had to submit; but he had been pleading for his own people, and his own country, and the liberties of Irishmen. He hoped he would be excused if he had in any degree, even by an eighth of an inch, gone too far, or occupied half a minute too much of the time of the Committee in replying to the arguments addressed to the Committee by the Home Secretary, and which he had considered to be very important, and calculated to have some effect upon the feeling of the House. Unfortunately, the people of Ireland were placed at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant in these matters; but the Lord Lieutenant himself was very little more than a name in these cases. The Lord Lieutenant sat in Dublin Castle, and could not personally investigate these districts, or be aware of what was going on in them, or what was likely to go on. He was bound to act upon information supplied to him by men who were notoriously the enemies of Ireland,

  1295
  and the enemies of Irish liberty and of Irish rights—by men convicted at the present moment even under the newly-made Act of Parliament—the Landlord and Tenant Act, which had just been passed—convicted by the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners of having been the robbers of the Irish people for generations; and it was to be upon information supplied by such men that the Lord Lieutenant was to act. Could any man doubt what the result would be under such circumstances? Did anyone not know that the landlords of Ireland hated and detested public meetings for any purpose whatever? If these men could have their own way, there would be a wholesale prohibition of public agitation, or of any public meeting for the assertion of public rights, from one end of the country to the other. It might be said, as a counter argument, that if such had been the will of the landlords there would have been no public meetings. Ho granted that this power had not been carried out to its utmost limit; but this was a new measure to enable them to carry it out to any limit they chose. Public meetings in Ireland had hitherto been regarded as safeguards, not only of the rights, but of the liberties of the people, and also as affording protection for the peace of the country. He believed that if public meetings could have been held in Ireland during the past two years, there would have been a far better state of things there than now existed. While public meetings were free there was very little crime in Ireland; but since they had been suppressed crime had increased. Under this system of terrorism and oppression crime was bound to grow up and flourish, and it was his firm conviction in regard to this measure that it would not tend to the repression of crime. There could be no doubt that there would be a strong feeling of irritation in the minds of the people when they found themselves shut out from every legitimate mode of agitation. It had been some sort of consolation to the people of Ireland, when they believed that they had grievances to ventilate, to know that the public platforms were open to them, and that they could give public expression to their feelings; it was a satisfaction to them to find that men were able to denounce the injustice which was practised upon them,
  1296
  and to plead for their rights and their liberties. Many a man who went to a meeting of that kind went homo with a feeling that there was still in Ireland someone who could speak for them and protect their interests by making a claim for justice and a protest against oppression. But what would happen now? Nothing of the kind could occur. The Irish tenant would have to brood over his grievance in secret. He would have to consult with a few men as desperate as himself; and, maddened by the injustice of being shut from every opportunity of public complaint, and thrown upon his own desperate resources for the vindication of his rights and redress of his wrongs, he would resort to acts that were illegal. He regretted to see the Home Secretary come down there and, in the English House of Commons, ask for the destruction of every fragment of Irish liberty. Where were the great Members of the Liberal Party who in former days had pleaded for liberty? Why did they not come there now and plead for the liberty of the subject in Ireland? Was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ashamed to show his face and to speak before the English nation in support of these tyrannical measures? Why was not even the Prime Minister himself present? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was committed to this Bill; but he loft the work of arguing in favour of tyranny and oppression to other hands than his own.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that he had never once spoken on the subject of the Amendment, but had been discussing the entire clause, He had not at all referred to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Well, then, Mr. Playfair, I will say no more.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the rejection by the Government of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) showed conclusively that their object was to stifle free speech in Ireland for the next three years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary said it was desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to put down meetings at which he reasonably believed speeches might be made of an inflammatory character calculated to excite the public to a breach of the

  1297
  peace, so that a meeting was to be put down, not because it was held for an illegal object, not on account of hostile influence that might be at work for bringing about a breach of the peace, not because it was unlawful or illegal, but simply because the Lord Lieutenant, or anybody thinking for him—for they knew very well the Lord Lieutenant must act on the information of others—believed that at that meeting certain speeches would be delivered which were objectionable. It was evident that the clause was introduced in order to strike at free speech. The Lord Lieutenant, under the present law, had power practically to put down every meeting in Ireland, and he therefore failed to see why the Government should ask for these extraordinary powers. The mere fact of the Lord Lieutenant forbidding a meeting was to constitute every man attending it a criminal in the eye of the law, and liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Suppose a meeting was called in Ireland for a perfectly legitimate object, such as reform of the Land Laws, or an extension of the suffrage—which was very much wanted in Ireland—the Lord Lieutenant would have power to put down such a meeting as that, so that any man at present deprived of a vote who attended it should, for supporting his claim for an extension of the suffrage, be liable to be sent for six months to gaol, and condemned to herd with thieves of the worst character and description, as if he had been guilty of some crime against morality. It was very well to point out that before the Lord Lieutenant could act upon this belief, he must receive information from someone, probably someone living in the locality in which the meeting was to be held, and they all knew that the people who would furnish information of that character to the Castle were men utterly opposed to the popular view that was taken in Ireland of public affairs—men who thought that reform had gone far enough in Ireland, who would like to see no further reform in any direction, and who would easily allow themselves to be persuaded into the belief that a breach of the peace was contemplated, which might be prejudicial to the public safety. Ho did not like the words "public safety;" he thought they had rather an anomalous sound. He remembered, within the last
  1298
  seven or eight months, public meetings being held in the City which he represented (Waterford), and he was aware that a deliberate attempt was made to endeavour to get that meeting proclaimed. Information was sworn before the magistrate that if the meeting was held it would lead to a breach of the peace on that occasion. The information so sworn was not taken notice of by the authorities, because, happily, the magistrate, and even the police in Waterford, were on the best possible terms with the people; and they knew from long experience that on the occasion of ordinary popular demonstrations they could firmly trust to the people themselves. The result was that large public demonstrations had never been attended with anything tending to a breach of the peace. Nevertheless, this information was sworn, and, no doubt, the gentlemen who sought to have the meeting prohibited had persuaded themselves that it ought to be stopped. It was not stopped; and how were they to know that informations, not a bit more justified, might lead to the stoppage of other meetings in different parts of Ireland? He felt perfectly convinced that the circumstances under which meetings had been proclaimed during the time the late Chief Secretary was in Office—during the last 12 months—were equally questionable; and if this power now sought to be introduced under the present clause had been in the hands of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), there would not have been a single public meeting held in Ireland during the last two years. He thought the Government would have acted in a more straightforward manner if they had said that for the next two or three years there should be no public meeting in Ireland. He thought they might reasonably accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), if they only designed to put down illegal meetings, or to put down meetings which, in their opinion or judgment, were summoned with an evil intent, or with an intention of carrying out a lawful object in some way that might be considered tumultously and riotously. That would be a sufficiently extensive power to place in their hands; but they appeared to want the power of taking away every vestige of liberty in Ireland. The moment this

  1299
  Bill passed, he thought it would be the duty of the Irish people to call as many meetings as possible, in order to ascertain if it were intended to allow any meeting whatever to be held. By that means they would soon expose the hands of the Government, and see whether these great powers were to be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant, simply because he was a Member of the Liberal Party, and was supposed to profess Liberal opinions. He confessed that he himself would rather trust to an Irishman. What guarantee had they for the presumption that any new Lord Lieutenant would be a man of Liberal views, and what guarantee had they for supposing that Lord Spencer would remain long in his present Office? He might very soon become disgusted with the position he was called upon to occupy, and some desperate man might be sent over, who would put a stop to every meeting, no matter how legitimate was the object for which it was called.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, this particular Amendment was really an Amendment that would kill the clause; it was not at all an Amendment to the clause; but, if carried, it would take the life and principle out of it. He did not apply that general criticism to all the Amendments which had been put on the Paper, but only to this particular Amendment. What was it? It was one which asked the Committee to say that it was right only to entrust the power to the Lord Lieutenant to put down meetings that were convened for a certain purpose and with a specific intent. Anyone must see at a glance that that would practically put the Lord Lieutenant at the mercy of the notice that would be issued convening the meeting, and the convener of the meeting would simply have to take care not to convene it for the particular purpose mentioned in the Amendment. Such a proposition would obviously destroy the clause. He would not say that that was the object of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but he rather thought it was. The Government obviously would not ask for a power like the present unless they were satisfied, on mature consideration, that there was no alternative which would enable them to act without it. Yesterday a letter from the Viceroy had been read, from which it appeared that he had every desire to
  1300
  look at this matter from the fairest and most reasonable standpoint. He believed that if the Viceroy were entrusted with the power named in the Bill it would not be used secretly, and he hoped that it would be left to him to consider whether the meetings were likely to disturb the public peace or the public safety; and, further, that wise and rational counsel would be brought to bear upon the matter. For his own part, ho would regret that any Act of Parliament should interfere with the expression of legitimate public opinion; and he ventured to think that neither in England nor in Ireland would any man who understood the condition of the country wish to see any section of an Act applied to check legitimate discussion or fair criticism of abuses. But Ireland at present was in a most critical and dangerous political position; and the Committee would understand that with regard to many parts of the country meetings of certain kinds, held upon certain conditions, might unquestionably be dangerous to the public peace and public safety. Therefore, he did not think it unreasonable that the very difficult and responsible power given by the section should be vested in the head of the Irish Administration. It was, of course, very easy for hon. Members below the Gangway to talk of the tyrannical exercise of an arbitrary discretion; but they lived in a country where the tyrannical exercise of discretion was impossible. One had only to look at the Question Paper to see that nothing great or small could be done without its being brought before the House of Commons; and, therefore, with regard to the power of the clause, whether it were exercised by the present able and capable Nobleman at the head of the Irish Administration, or the Viceroy who succeeded him, he felt sure it would be exercised under conditions that would place it within the reach of the fullest public discussion and examination.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that although the right hon. and learned Gentleman had professed himself desirous of preserving the right of public meeting, he was about to vote for a clause which, if it were passed without Amendment, would make it absolutely impossible to hold any popular meeting in Ireland during the next three years. Suppose a meeting got up for the most

  1301
  legitimate purpose, and that it was known that the opinions which some people were likely to express there would be distasteful to other persons who might attend the meeting, the Viceroy in that case would say—"This is a meeting which is likely to disturb the peace, and it cannot be held." A person wishing to stop a meeting would only have to say that he was going to oppose, and that there would be a riot, and the Viceroy would consider himself bound to suppress it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said this power was as much needed now as it was in the year 1833. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) did not admit that; but if it were true, what a censure did the words of the right hon. Gentleman pass upon a Government that, after the 50 years of coercion which had elapsed, now brought in another Coercion Bill for the purpose of governing Ireland! He did not think that the policy of the English Government with regard to Ireland had ever been more sternly condemned than by the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, they had been told it was not the intention of the Government to interfere in any way with the right of public meeting, or with the free expression of public opinion in Ireland; the sentiment had been repeated so often that he thought the Committee were almost tired of it. But notwithstanding this, when any Amendment was introduced with the object of safeguarding that expression of opinion, it was opposed in the strongest possible way, not only by the Government, but by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. Another of the stock arguments which were bandied from one side of the House to the other had just been made use of by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). He confessed he was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Government desired the power in the clause; that it was necessary, and that, therefore, the clause should be passed. Why, that argument might be applied to every conceivable law which the Government wished to introduce; but, besides that, it constituted a comprehensive support of tyranny—it was in itself a most illogical and unconstitu-
  1302
  tional argument. It was inconsistent with the liberties of that House to try to influence the vote of any Member of it by saying he must pass the clause because the Government thought they ought to have absolute power. He protested against that argument.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he objected to that being represented as his argument. He had said that the House and the country were thoroughly acquainted with the state of affairs in Ireland; and therefore he thought it not unreasonable, with these facts before them, that the Government should ask for these additional powers.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he was only carrying the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to its logical end in saying that because the Government thought they required this power, therefore it ought to be granted. If that were not the conclusion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to be drawn, his argument had no meaning whatever. The argument had been put forward on both sides of the House ad nauseam; it was a stock argument introduced against any modification of this most objectionable clause which Irish Members wished to amend. But he was glad to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin disclaimed any desire to carry it to its legitimate conclusion. Another of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that he himself, and everyone in the House who had spoken against the Amendments put forward by Irish Members, and against this one in particular, desired nothing more than that there should be free expression of public opinion in Ireland. If that were the case, he would only say that hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen had taken a very strange way of showing the sincerity of their desire. Why, the clause entirely prevented the expression of any public opinion in Ireland whatever. The clause made no provision for weighing and testing the opinion expressed, by the ordinary rules of law, as to whether or no it constituted an offence; but the expression of public opinion was made an offence beforehand, and if the clause remained without Amendment it would give power to the Lord Lieutenant, not only to declare a meeting illegal, but to make it an offence

  1303
  for anybody to be present as a listener. That amounted to an extension of the law which no ukase, law, or decree issued in foreign countries could parallel. The Government said that all they wanted was the power to convict without a jury, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said in the course of the present discussion, it was of no use to send cases before juries who would not convict. That, undoubtedly, was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, and it constituted the raison d'être of the clause. But the clause not only took away trial by jury—it took away trial by evidence. Trial by jury might, perhaps, be dispensed with if an adequate tribunal were substituted for it; but it was impossible that any reasonable assent could be given to a trial without evidence. The latest effort of coercive rule in Ireland rendered some amount of reasonable suspicion necessary; but this clause dispensed even with that, and by it a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour could be inflicted without there being a suspicion of guilt against anybody. The mere attendance at a meeting prohibited beforehand on suspicion would be a crime of itself, even if the person so attending had no knowledge that the meeting had been prohibited. But it was said it was only proposed to prohibit meetings under circumstances that made it a proper thing to do so; to which he replied—"Let those circumstances be defined in the Act." That the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton proposed to do, and the definition supplied by him appeared to be quite sufficient to arm the hands of the Irish Executive in doing what was right. Surely they needed no power to prohibit a meeting held for an illegal purpose. That power the Amendment left untouched, and the Home Secretary, moreover, said—"If such a purpose is openly expressed in the notice calling the meeting, then we should not need this power; we could deal with a case of that kind under the powers we have." Well, even if other powers were necessary for that purpose, let them be given. If it could be shown that under cover of a Constitutional purpose there was an intention to incite to crime, then the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton gave power to the Lord
  1304
  Lieutenant to suppress any such meeting. That being so, he asked, what more power was required by the Irish Executive? There was no meeting which ought to be suppressed that did not come within the two categories in the Amendment before the Committee; and if something must be done in order to prevent the peace being disturbed, or illegality being done at any public meeting, he contended that the clause as it was proposed to be amended was ample for the purpose. In case of the prohibition of a perfectly harmless meeting, without the Amendment there would be no evidence to show what it was that induced the belief in the mind of the Lord Lieutenant that the meeting was likely to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety, nor any means of afterwards tracing the person who might have misled the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the meeting. It had been pointed out that the Lord Lieutenant would never act propria motu; and, therefore, if information were given to him that a public meeting ought to be suppressed, and in consequence of that information he were to subject persons to penalties who were not liable at all, there would be no means of finding out who were the real disturbers of the public peace by misleading the Lord Lieutenant. The clause, without amendment, would give facilities to the spy and the informer, and to persons wishing to interfere with the legitimate expression of public opinion, who would be enabled to effect their nefarious purposes with impunity, for there would be no means of bringing them to justice. "But," said the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, "you have the power of preventing such abuses, because you can always put questions in the House of Commons with regard to any abuse of power in Ireland." Now, he did not think any person who had regarded the course of events in that country would deny that there had been a great abuse of power on the part of somebody; but ho should like to know of any person who had been brought to justice for that abuse of power in consequence of the questions that had been asked. He was unable to recollect a single instance of the kind; and, therefore, he concluded that the protection on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  1305
  relied was perfectly useless. He cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, because he considered there ought to be some safeguards to protect the people, not against abuse on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, for he did not believe he would abuse his powers intentionally; but against the action of those in whom he would have to trust, and for whom Irish Members had no feeling of confidence—the persons who would be able to put the Lord Lieutenant in motion, so to speak, and utilize his great powers for the purposes of private malice and private partizanship, or for purposes equally to be deplored, and which had already too many facilities for their attainment in Ireland. If the clause was to be worked by the Lord Lieutenant, there must soon be a situation vacant at the Castle; he would be obliged to have a chief prophet, and the opposition of himself and his Colleagues to the clause might be modified if it were known who was to be elevated to that irresponsible post.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he differed from the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) on one important point. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the questions put to the Government with regard to Irish abuses had not borne any fruit during the last two years. He confessed there was great difficulty in getting redress of grievances by means of questions and Motions; but he had always felt that if the practice were persevered in beneficial results must follow. Indeed, they knew that substantial advantages had accrued already from the questions asked and the speeches made in denunciation of the Government policy towards Ireland during the last 12 months. The results up to the present time were that they had got rid of a Chief Secretary and a Lord Lieutenant, and he held that a very substantial benefit had been derived from the pressure brought to bear on the Government and on public opinion in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had referred to a large meeting which was held in Hyde Park in 1866. Now, he thought the parallel drawn by the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been carried farther. The people in Ireland would not complain if fault were found by the Lord Lieutenant with a meeting
  1306
  at which real outrage took place; but, as far as he could remember, no prosecution followed the meeting in Hyde Park, although the railings were torn down, and the meeting had been prohibited. He challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that outrage had taken place at any meeting held in Ireland. It was notorious that the meetings held there had been of the most peaceable character. The Government should speak frankly and say they would only allow meetings to take place when the promoters engaged that no fault should be found with their policy. That was the real meaning of the clause; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) simply provided that some specific offence should be expected to take place before a meeting was prohibited, and before the parties attending that meeting as spectators should become criminally liable for so doing. On the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he should probably be able to give the Committee reasons why persons should not be prosecuted criminally on account of things of which they were ignorant. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had scarcely stated the case fairly when he said that the Amendment before the Committee proposed that persons should only be liable to prosecution for attending a meeting if it were held for an unlawful object. With submission to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was not so. The Amendment required that a specified offence should be charged before the Lord Lieutenant should use his power of prohibition; whereas the clause allowed him to say that he found fault with a meeting because it was likely to lead to disturbance. The Irish Executive was, of course, responsible to the House of Commons for the use made of the information at their disposal; and, therefore, before they put down a meeting, or prosecuted anyone criminally for attending it, they ought to be satisfied that some substantial offence was intended before the powers of this clause were put in motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 38: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
  MR. MARUM,in moving in line 15, after the word "believe," to insert "grounded upon information in writing and on oath," said, this Amendment was not opposed to the principle of the clause. He regarded it as a very important Amendment, and a very substantial one, not being simply an Amendment in form. The object of it was to secure that if meetings were prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant as dangerous, the belief of the Lord Lieutenant as to their danger must be grounded upon information in writing or upon oath. He desired to prevent liberty of speech being curtailed, except upon sworn information. It was the ordinary rule of evidence that the property or liberty of the subject should not be taken away or interfered with, except on sworn evidence; and when so enormous a power was about to be conceded to the Lord Lieutenant, it should be safeguarded by not being left to the personal view of an individual. They all knew the high personal character of the present Lord Lieutenant, who was exceedingly and deservedly popular and well known in Ireland; but, in addition to the personal character of the Lord Lieutenant, there ought to be sworn information as to the circumstances which required a meeting to be prohibited. It should not be left to the caprice of a single individual. He thought that that was not an unreasonable proposal. It ought not to be within the uncontrolled discretion of the Executive to curtail any man's liberty and privileges; and, in his opinion, the Amendment would exercise some check upon the authorities, by providing that the information as to the danger likely to result from a meeting should be given on oath. If the Amendment were accepted, he thought they would be able to go on rapidly with the remaining parts of the Bill. He and his Colleagues would do all in their power to expedite it. [Cries of "No!"from the Irish Members.] What he meant was that they would not do anything of a dilatory character to prolong the discussion. He must say that, to a certain extent, he looked upon the Bill as inevitable. No doubt, they all wished to have the provisions of the Bill properly discussed; but they would not obstruct if they were met in a conciliatory spirit as regarded the Amendments they might feel it their duty to propose.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 15, after the word "believe," to insert the words "grounded upon information in writing and on oath."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would be glad if he could meet the views of the hon. and learned Member, who always showed a reasonable spirit; but the fact was that this very same question had been discussed at considerable length on the 1st clause of the Bill as to whether the Lord Lieutenant should exercise his discretion in regard to suspending trial by jury. The question then considered was, whether the Lord Lieutenant should act upon his own responsibility, or whether it was necessary he should have sworn information from other persons? The Government argued upon that clause that full responsibility in the matter must be left to the Lord Lieutenant, and that there should be no one else upon whom the responsibility could be thrown. It was quite plain that a dangerous meeting might be suddenly called, and that very little notice that it was going to be held might be given. Under such circumstances, there might not be sufficient time to get the sworn information to which the Amendment pointed; and, therefore, he was bound to say that the ground on which he declined to accept the Amendment was the same ground on which he had declined to accept a similar Amendment on the 1st clause.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not know whether his hon. and learned Friend felt much honoured by the compliment which had been paid to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the reasonable spirit which had actuated him. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend had well considered the somewhat ardent disposition he seemed to possess to expedite the passage of the Bill. It did not seem that any desire to expedite the Bill by exercising forbearance on the part of the Irish Members would be met in a corresponding spirit by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said, in answer to the Amendment, that the responsibility must remain with the Lord Lieutenant. It was needless to point out that the responsibility would equally remain with the Lord Lieutenant, whether he acted

  1309
  upon sworn information or upon hearsay evidence, or some mere whisper, or some vague letter. In any case the belief of the Lord Lieutenant would be the supreme factor. The Amendment allowed the Lord Lieutenant full and free play over every description of public meeting whatever. It did not propose to limit the criminal responsibility of holding an improper meeting even in the case of an ignorant person who, by misadventure, might be present at such a meeting. It left this grievous blow at the rights of the subject untouched. It only sought to accomplish one single object—namely, that the Lord Lieutenant, before declaring a meeting unlawful, and exposing an innocent person to be imprisoned for six months with hard labour, should act upon sworn information. They were told by the Home Secretary that a meeting might be called suddenly, and that the Lord Lieutenant might not have time to get sworn information. Upon that point he would challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to sustain or verify his argument by any reference to past facts connected with Ireland. Was it a fact that these meetings were convened with haste? Was it not well known that there was always a week or a fortnight's notice of them in advance? The notices were distributed freely in the locality, and there was ample time to prepare evidence, because in Ireland the police were ubiquitous. They consisted of a large force distributed very skilfully all over the country, and nothing could take place in the humblest hamlet or the remotest nook without their knowledge. As soon as it was decided to hold a meeting the police knew when and where it was to be held, and what was the object of it. Under these circumstances, with an intelligent force pervading the whole of Ireland, and exercising a vigilant surveillance over the whole public proceedings of the country, he could not see why it should not be necessary to have a sworn information. The police, in every case, could furnish such information, and could state the grounds they had for apprehending a breach of the peace. A meeting could be prohibited for two causes—one that a breach of the peace was apprehended at the meeting itself, and another that danger was apprehended to some person who resided in the district, Those were the two grounds
  1310
  which would justify the Lord Lieutenant in proceeding to take action, and it would be perfectly easy for sworn information to be got, and to transmit it to Dublin Castle. If sworn information were required, two advantages would follow. One would be that the Lord Lieutenant, before prohibiting a meeting, would have before him evidence on the subject in regular form. At present the Government avoided the point, by arguing that sworn information would evade the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant. In this objection they were acting with an ignorance remarkable in persons of their experience and ingenuity. The only effect of requiring the Lord Lieutenant to act upon sworn information would be to assure the people of Ireland that the Lord Lieutenant, before he used this drastic power, had evidence before him—that he was not prohibiting a public meeting upon the mere whisper of the informer, or the tattle of the spy, but upon a tangible statement placed before him in regular form on the sanction of an oath. The second advantage would be that if the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant was subsequently questioned, it would be open to the Irish Representatives to require the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to lay upon the Table the sworn information upon which His Excellency had acted, or, at any rate, to call upon him to do so, leaving the onus of a refusal upon the right hon. Gentleman himself. Whenever the rights of the subject were affected, or the liberties of the people abrogated, it was not only a matter of extreme importance, but of right, that there should be in the official archives a record of the reasons which had led to such an interference with liberty. That was his only reason for supporting this demand for sworn information. He had listened until he was sick of hearing of the Government acting upon their own responsibility. It was an empty and misleading phrase. In this matter the Government had no responsibility whatever. Responsibility meant liability to answer, and responsibility ceased when the Government refused to answer. It was in order to give the materials for enabling them to answer that he called upon them to act only on sworn information.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he must confess that he looked upon the Amendment as

  1311
  a very important one, and he still entertained hopes that the Government might be induced to agree to it. The Home Secretary said it was not necessary, in matters of this kind, for the Lord Lieutenant to have sworn information, because he did not require it in cases where he suspended trial by jury. That sounded very well; but, at the same time, it must be remembered that when they suspended trial by jury they substituted another tribunal, which they considered to be quite as satisfactory. But here it was not the case of substituting one tribunal for another, but the case of constituting a new crime; and he certainly thought that before they constituted a new crime the Lord Lieutenant ought to be satisfied by sworn information before he proceeded to take action. He (Mr. Dillwyn) was, therefore, of opinion that this was a most important Amendment, and that it ought to be adopted. In the one case they substituted a new tribunal, and in the other they constituted a new crime. Everyone who recognized the importance of this distinction would, he was satisfied, support the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to another point in the reply of the Home Secretary, where the right hon. and learned Gentleman directed attention to the 1st clause of the Bill. Under that clause, persons who were to be put on their trial before the Special Commission constituted by the Bill must, in the first instance, have been committed for trial upon sworn evidence. First of all, a sworn information must have been laid before a magistrate, and must have been brought under the knowledge of the Attorney General, who, on reading it, would have directed a prosecution; but, in the case to which the Amendment applied, there would be no evidence of any information having been given at all. The Lord Lieutenant might, of his own mere motion, without any information at all from anybody, prohibit a meeting; and he thought it was in the interests of the Lord Lieutenant himself that the Amendment should be accepted, because, in that case, the Lord Lieutenant might be able to say—"I had no opinion whatever as to the desirability of holding this meeting; but I have been reading a statement that something unlawful is likely to take place at it, and, therefore,
  1312
  it is my duty to prohibit it." To supply the Lord Lieutenant with evidence of some kind would be satisfactory to this extent—that it would raise a reasonable suspicion in his mind that some disorder might take place; and, in the next place, he would be able to offer some tangible and reasonable excuse for prohibiting a public meeting. As the matter now stood, the Lord Lieutenant could offer no excuse at all, further than that someone thought it was undesirable to hold the meeting. If the Lord Lieutenant had, in writing, on sworn information, the grounds on which he founded his decision, it would be a perfect answer to any complaint made against him or the Government for suppressing a meeting; but there would be no answer at all if there was an entire absence of any writing, or of any information on oath. In such a case the responsibility would be entirely thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant, and he would have no means of defending himself. If the Lord Lieutenant had the safeguard provided by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum); if it was proposed to censure him for having prohibited a public meeting, he would be able to fall back upon the information upon which he had acted; which he would be unable to do if he acted upon hearsay evidence alone, because the person upon whose testimony the Lord Lieutenant acted would inevitably, in the event of a question being raised as to the wisdom of the discretion exercised, dispute what it was alleged he had actually said. Therefore, in the interest of the Lord Lieutenant himself, it would be much better to agree to the present Amendment; and it was also desirable, because it was not impossible that there might be sworn evidence of a dishonest character, in which case it would be the duty of the Irish Representatives to expose the transaction, and to call upon the Government to dismiss the person by whom it had been given. But, as the case now stood, there were no means of tracing who the informer was, or of testing the value of his information, or of finding out whether a meeting had been improperly prohibited. He regretted that the Government should steadfastly decline to be influenced by argument or reason; but, at the same time, it was the duty of the Irish Mem-

  1313
  bers to press these considerations upon their attention.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he did not know whether the Government still refused to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum). Whenever there was a reasonable ground for interfering with a meeting, no doubt the Lord Lieutenant would receive abundant information to enable him to act. It would be in the power of the police to supply ample sworn information. It might put the Government to a small amount of additional trouble; but in a most important matter of this kind, where the liberties of the people were at stake, the Government ought not to hesitate taking trouble when it became necessary in order to base their action upon reasonable cause. If the Government acted as they would be able to act under the clause as it stood, the rights of public meeting would be at the mercy of any malicious person in Ireland; and they would see occurring, very frequently, what had already occurred in the past—namely, that some malicious person in a district would supply the Lord Lieutenant with information, which had no solid foundation whatever, and thereby deprive the people of the district of the right to hold a public meeting. He thought these were powers which the Government ought to exercise with the utmost discretion, and that they ought to surround their exercise with every possible guarantee for the liberty of the subject. If they accepted this Amendment, some slight guarantee would still remain for the right of public meeting. There would also be this further advantage—that there would be some ground available for the House by which it might be able to pass a judgment upon the action of the Lord Lieutenant. It was most important, he thought, that hon. Members should be able to challenge the action of the Irish Executive. The Irish Executive was a centralized Body, and it acted from motives which the public had great difficulty in understanding. It was desirable that the Members from Ireland should be able to challenge the Representatives of the Executive in that House to defend the action they deemed it expedient to take. If the Amendment were adopted, there would be a record on which to go, by which they would be able to pin the
  1314
  Government to a responsibility for everything they did.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 59: Majority 18.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he begged to move the Amendment next upon the Paper. It would be evident to the Committee that the words "dangerous to the public safety" might be applied to anything that the Government found to disagree with their own views. The meaning of the Amendment was, therefore, obvious, and ho trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would be able to agree to it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 16, to leave out the words "or the public safety."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or the public safety' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had already stated that he had followed the language of the Act of 1833. The words "public peace or the public safety" indicated what it was that the clause was intended to protect, and to omit them would be to take away the very ground on which the clause rested.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think there was no material difference between the state of the country at the present time, and the state of the country 50 years ago, and his argument practically amounted to this—that what was good for Ireland then was good now. It was quite clear that the clause would enable the Lord Lieutenant to stop any meeting he pleased, and he was unable to see why the clause did not end at "meeting" in line 15. To his mind, there was no reason whatever for the remaining words of the clause, and the argument that they were included in this Bill because they were in the Act of 1893 was inadmissible. Irish Members desired a statement as to the character of the meetings which the Government wished to prohibit, because he did not attach much importance to the words of qualification at the end of the clause. If he

  1315
  called a meeting to advocate the cutting down of rents 25 per cent, and told the tenants not to pay without that reduction, would that be considered an illegal meeting? Meetings of the kind were announced by placards, and anyone drawing up the announcement would take care to frame it so as to make it as peaceable as possible. If he intended to do an illegal act ho would use no words in the placard tending to discover to the Executive the real character of the meeting. It would, therefore, be left to the opinion of the magistrates. Now, the meetings held in Ireland were generally for the purpose of considering the rent question, and hence the importance of a statement on the part of the Government. Again, the Government might have a Bill before Parliament to deal with the Land Question, for instance, and a meeting might be called to consider it. Was that the kind of meeting the Government wished to prevent? Did the Government mean that the magistrates in various parts of Ireland were to be intrusted with the grave power of suppressing public meetings? He would not then enter upon a discussion of the character of the Resident Magistrates; but he said that the men who had to do with the suppression of crime in Ireland wore the last men in the world to be intrusted with the powers of the clause, because it was very well known that if a man was in a position in which he was intrusted with the maintenance of peace and order of a district, he would be likely to strain a point in what he believed to be the interest of peace and order. He would consider that the main thing was the maintenance of peace and order, and that the interest of the subject was of very little importance as compared with it. It was very easy to understand a Resident Magistrate putting down a public meeting on the mere assumption that the public peace might be disturbed if it took place. He would not say that in this matter the Lord Lieutenant's check did not amount to something, but he did say that, as the Resident Magistrates were the persons from whom the Executive Government were bound to get their information, unless some statement were made as to the kind of meetings aimed at, the power in the clause was too wide to give to any individual. Again, it was not clear whether it was intended to put down indoor as well as outdoor
  1316
  meetings, and he asked, if it was not the intention of the Government to suppress indoor meetings, that this should be stated in the Bill. He believed there wore not more than half-a-dozen towns in Ireland in which buildings existed suitable for a meeting of 500 persons. Of course, the urban population had, comparatively speaking, not the same interest in the rent question as the rural population; and although he could understand the Government taking power to prevent meetings in rural districts, he could not see why they should be at so much trouble to prevent meetings in the cities of Dublin, Cork, or Belfast, for instance. Ho thought some consideration was due to the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment, which he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary to the Home Department would see his way to adopt.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was difficult to define the character of the meetings over which this power was to be exercised. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put the case of a meeting being called for the purpose of adversely criticizing a Bill to deal with the Irish Land Question, which the Government of the day might have before Parliament, and ho had asked whether such a meeting would come within the meaning of the clause? He should say certainly it would not. With regard to the use of the words proposed to be omitted, from the hon. Member's own point of view, if he believed the power of the clause would be abused, it was really immaterial whether the words were left out or not. But Her Majesty's Government did believe that these words would be binding on the conscience of the Lord Lieutenant. Probably the hon. Member thought that the Lord Lieutenant, ex-officio, had no conscience; but the Government had proceeded on the opposite assumption, and believed he would be bound by the directions contained in the Act, and that ho would not stop any meeting, however adverse it might be to himself or the Government, unless he were convinced that the meeting would be injurious to the public peace or the public safety. That was the reason why these words were put into the clause; and as, from the hon. Member's point of view, it was said they were of no use at all, he would suggest that the

  1317
  opposition to them should be withdrawn. With regard to the question as to whether the Act would apply to indoor meetings, he should say that it would so apply. It would be found in the Act of 1833 that power was given to the magistrates to enter any house, room, or other place where they had information that meetings were to be held; and the object of the Government would not be fulfilled if indoor meetings of an inflammatory kind were allowed on occasions and under circumstances likely to lead to the use of language calculated to be injurious to the public safety, because although the meeting might be of little interest in the urban district in which it was held, the report of it would be sent far and wide in the country. These were the views of Her Majesty's Government; and, although he could not hope to persuade hon Members opposite to adopt them, he had felt it his duty to state the grounds on which the Government proposed this clause of the Bill. That being so, he trusted he should not be considered to act unreasonably in declining to accept an Amendment which was inconsistent with the intention of the Government. The words "or public safety" were meant as an instruction to the Lord Lieutenant that he should read by their light the information which he might receive from the Resident Magistrates. For his own part, he believed that this object would be fulfilled, and that the Lord Lieutenant would act strictly in accordance with what he understood to be the intention of the Government.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had informed the Committee that Irish Members in that part of the House were desirous that the words "public peace" should be left out of the clause as well as the words "public safety." But that was not so; the proposal was simply to leave out the words "or public safety." They all understood the meaning of the former words, but felt that in speaking of "public safety" they were entering upon the region of the vague and the mysterious. It appeared to him to be perfectly consistent with the Government intentions that this phrase, which dated from the worst period in the French Revolution, should be omitted from the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman desired the Com-
  1318
  mittee to remember that the liberties of the people of Ireland were protected by the conscience of the Lord Lieutenant. He (Mr. Sexton) would point out that in a calculation of this kind the Lord Lieutenant's conscience was an unknown quantity, and whatever might be the estimate placed upon it by the Secretary to the Home Department, he, for one, objected to the conscience of any man being the arbiter of the liberties of Irishmen; and he invited hon. Members to consider how the English people would act and think if it were proposed to confide their liberties to the conscience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Wexford had put a very pertinent question when he asked why the phrase "public safety," taken from the Act of 1833, was considered good enough to suit the present day? The two periods were perfectly distinct in their characteristics, and he had already pointed out that the country, in the year 1833, was in a state of insurrectionary movement, or rather in a state of inchoate civil war. The measures which it might have been well to apply to the state of things then existing were quite inadequate or inapplicable to the present. Moreover, it could not be too often pointed out that persons who attended public meetings were not under the Act of 1833, as a matter of course, thrown into gaol at the will of the Lord Lieutenant. They had an opportunity of questioning the decision of the Lord Lieutenant—they held their meetings, and after that they had the right to go before a jury. These were things which constituted a remarkable difference between the Act of 1833 and the Bill now before the Committee, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not be said to have touched his case until he had shown why it was reasonable that the Constitutional right of trial by jury should be left untouched in 1833, and abolished in 1882. No matter on what important point Irish Members sought to amend this Bill, their efforts were unavailing. Their object had been simply to define the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, so that the people might know under what circumstances they would come under the lash of that power; they had endeavoured to define the conditions on which the Lord Lieutenant should interfere, and to obtain some idea of the kind of

  1319
  information on which he would act; but on each of these points they had been met by the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a distinct refusal. The proposal that the Lord Lieutenant should prohibit public meetings when the public peace was endangered had been admitted by his hon. Friends to be reasonable and intelligible; but this expression, "public safety," was vague and indefinite in the extreme. The present clause would extend the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, which now almost amounted to omnipotence, in a sense that would require him to be acquainted, not only with the past and present, but with the future. He contended that the Amendment was a most reasonable one, and that so long as the Government could exercise their power of preventing the disturbance of the public peace, which was a very well understood thing, it was unnecessary to give them powers, under the phrase of "public safety," which would allow them to suppress all political discussions, and prevent criticism on the Party in power.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought that the Amendment would not at all interfere with the object which the Government professed to have in introducing this clause into the Bill. Either the public safety was the same thing as the public peace, or it was not. If it were not so, then he thought the Government should inform the Committee what meaning they attached to the phrase, because he assumed that when the Bill passed into law they would have some definite idea of its meaning in their mind. As far as he could understand from his right hon. and learned Friend's defence of the phrase "public safety," some such language was to be found in the Act of 1833. But that was not a very apt precedent. The Act of 1833 was a very severe one; it was brought in when Lord Wellesley was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and two years afterwards it was obliged to be admitted that it was a total failure, inasmuch as, notwithstanding the extensive powers which it gave to the Executive, it was safer to disobey than to obey the law. Unless his right hon. and learned Friend was prepared to state the meaning which he attached to the words "public safety," it seemed to him not unreasonable that the Amendment should be accepted.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not think the words were of great importance one way or another. They seemed to him to be superfluous, and it was difficult to understand why the Government were so firm in insisting upon them. The clause said—
  "The Lord Lieutenant may, from time to time, by order in writing, to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety."
  Now, he would like to know how a thing could be dangerous to the public safety without being dangerous to the public peace. He could not see anything in the words which the Amendment sought to strike out but mere surplusage. He could imagine an occurrence which would endanger the public safety without laying individuals or a number of persons open to the charge of having imperilled the public peace. An earthquake, for instance, might imperil the public safety very much; but he did not see how anybody in Ireland could be held accountable for the occurrence of an earthquake, even under this Act. What, then, was the use of the words? Was it not sufficient for all purposes of the Government that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to suppress meetings which he believed to be dangerous to the public peace? There was no need for him to go beyond that, nor, turning his eyes to the distant future, to form fantastic notions of possible events which might occur years hence when politics and laws had undergone very material alterations. If that were so, there was no need for the retention of these paltry words in the clause. It was a noticeable fact that whenever Irish Members on those Benches, or hon. Members opposite, proposed to leave out any words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary to the Home Department rose at once and declared that the words in question constituted, so to speak, the gem or pearl of the measure, and that without them the rest of the Bill would be useless. That was the case with regard to the words "public safety." He never knew an individual who set such an extraordinary value on every atom of his work as did the Home Secretary, who told them the Bill would be mangled if these words were left out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was a bold legislator; but it

  1321
  seemed to require a great amount of hardihood to make such a contention in the face of facts.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member having described the words "public safety" as being paltry and little, one would have supposed he would be content to let them alone. But, for his part, he regarded them as words of importance which should be retained in the clause. The hon. Member had complained that the Government never accepted the suggestions of himself and his Friends. But he would point out that, in making those suggestions, hon. Members opposite were, so to speak, trying "to pick the plums out of the pudding;" and, under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that he was rather anxious to retain them. Hon. Members opposite had an aptitude to discover the exact words which, by their omission or insertion, would neutralize every section of the Bill. It had been said that the condition of Ireland in 1833 was much worse than at the present time. He wished he could think it was so. Ho believed the condition of Ireland was quite as bad as it was in 1833, and that it was even more liable to inflammation by dangerous language. It was this that the Government desired to guard against. As regarded the first part of the clause, it was only intended to confirm and sanction what had been done and what was being done. With regard to the second part it was intended only to give a more summary and complete power of stopping public meetings. It must, therefore, not be supposed that now for the first time the stoppage of public meetings was suggested. As he had before pointed out, he could not hope that hon. Members opposite would agree with the view of the Government; but he had felt it his duty to state, as clearly as possible, what were the intentions of the Government, and what was the meaning of the words in question. Notwithstanding it had been said that the Lord Lieutenant would not be restrained by these words, but would stop every meeting, Her Majesty's Government believed that the Lord Lieutenant would consider himself strictly bound by them. Her Majesty's Government had deliberately included these words in the Bill, and they regarded them as proper directions to the Lord Lieutenant, that, in the exercise of his power to prohibit public
  1322
  meetings, he should consider what was dangerous to the public peace or the public safety.
  MR. GIVANsaid, he differed from many hon. Members opposite, and he also took a different view to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last. The Amendment was certainly a very dangerous and bitter plum for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. One could understand what was dangerous to the public peace, but no human being could understand what the words "public safety" might be construed to mean. At the present time small meetings were being held in his own county, to protest against most iniquitous proceedings that had been taken on behalf of the landlords. The landlords were suing their tenants by writ, in order to obtain their arrears of rent before the Arrears Bill was passed. These meetings might, under this clause, be construed to be dangerous to the public safety of a certain class. He would ask the Home Secretary whether a meeting called to protest against iniquitous proceedings of this kind were to be suppressed because, in the opinion of a magistrate representing the Lord Lieutenant, they were meetings to protest against the exercise of a just right on the part of the landlords? As the words now stood—namely, "public peace or public safety"—the Lord Lieutenant might be induced to believe that even a meeting convened by tenant farmers for legitimate or legal purposes might be dangerous to the safety of a particular interest, and, therefore, ought to be suppressed. Several months ago a meeting was held in the town of Saintfield to review the proceedings of the Commissioners. The police attended, in the belief that it was intended to denounce the action of the Commissioners; but it turned out that the meeting was held for the purpose of acknowledging the benefit the Prime Minister had conferred on Ireland by the passing of the Land Act. This was one of the most dangerous powers that could be given to any Government; but as he believed every reasonable power ought to be given to the Lord Lieutenant for the suppression of crime, he would offer no opposition to His Excellency having power to suppress meetings dangerous to the public peace. He, however, thought

  1323
  that the words "public safety" would be liable to misconstruction.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Givan) had made a discovery rather late in the day. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of some meetings just hold in the North of Ireland; but ho must be perfectly aware that the landlords were only exercising their legal rights, although they were making a very unjust and wicked use of their legal rights. His hon. and learned Friend must very well know that in protesting against the exercise of legal rights by landlords he was violating the 4th clause of the Act, which he (Mr. Givan) and many of his Friends supported. If such meetings as those the tenants of Monaghan hold to protest against iniquities on the part of landlords were to be put down by this Act, the hon. Gentleman himself would have a very heavy responsibility on his own shoulders. The words "public safety" had a most important bearing; they entirely enlarged, and not merely enlarged, but altered, the scope and even the purpose of the clause. What was the meaning of the words? Public safety in practice meant the status quo; public safety bore such a meaning in the minds of those who controlled and influenced and upheld the status quo. The right hon, and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was justified in objecting to that definition of public safety, because it was by breaking down the status quo in a country on the Continent of Europe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Colleagues secured their present positions. He took it that, as a general rule, the public safety and the status quo were, in the eye of the existing Government, convertible terms. The Home Secretary and his Colleagues Lad based their Bill on the disturbed state of Ireland—on the crimes and outrages prevailing there. But the public safety was not required to include every outrage and crime committed in Ireland. Every crime and outrage committed in Ireland was a crime and outrage against the public peace. What, then, did the Home Secretary mean by keeping in the clause the words "public safety?" He meant to retain for the Lord Lieutenant the right to put down any meeting which did not suit the Vice-Regal or Party purposes of the Lord Lieutenant for the time being. If the Government wanted
  1324
  to put down crime and outrage, the words "public peace" were quite sufficient for their purpose; but if they wanted to interfere with the right of public meeting, if they wanted to stifle the expression of free political opinion, they required the words "public safety;" these words were required if the Government wished to have the expression of political opinion dependent upon their will and pleasure. The Home Secretary had used a new argument in favour of the Bill, for ho said these words would be binding on the conscience of the Lord Lieutenant. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had read of various forms of conscience in the course of his political reading. The late Lord Beaconsfield once spoke of an historic conscience; but now a new kind of conscience had been unfolded—the Vice-Regal conscience. The Vice-Royalty was a pale and shadowy reflex of Royalty, and he supposed the Vice-Regal conscience would be a shadowy reflex of the honest conscience which ought to allow a free expression of opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary knew what he was doing by keeping in these words. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman credit all through for knowing exactly what he meant in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to maketheBill as autocratic as he could; he did not much mind stopping crime and outrage, but wanted to put down, wherever he could, honest expression of opinion which might be inconvenient to the English Government.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, one of the objections he had to the Bill was that new crime and now power should be disposed of by generalities. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) and the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had challenged the Home Secretary to give a definition of public safety, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not yet done so. Were the words to be absolutely undefined? Were they to be construed to mean anything? He listened very attentively to the speech of the Home Secretary, but it gave him no satisfaction. He trusted they might, even yet, receive some satisfactory definition of the words.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, it must

  1325
  be obvious to everybody that the Bill was not introduced for the purpose of re-enacting any existing laws. It was a Bill which was brought in to meet a special state of circumstances—a state of circumstances which every Member of the community, and particularly every Irishman, must view with the greatest regret, no matter what their opinion might be as to the remedy proposed. The Bill was intended to meet a temporary emergency, and the Bill would be temporary in its character. It proposed restrictions upon personal liberty, and this clause was one which pointed in that direction. Necessity, however, justified the interference which this clause would introduce. No one regretted more than he did the certainty, which did appear to him, that this was an absolutely necessary clause. The words proposed to be omitted were very important, and he would tell the Committee why. A meeting that was calculated to interfere with the public peace was one which the authorities should have power to put down. The words "public safety" appeared to be as important as the words "public peace." It should not be forgotten that many of the meetings which had been prohibited, and which in the interest of good government and order must necessarily be prohibited, were meetings not calculated to promote that which lawyers would call a breach of the peace. Everybody who knew anything about the state of Ireland knew that many meetings had been held, and many others had been prohibited, the intention of which was not to produce any immediate breach of the peace, and as to which meetings no conscientious man in the position of the Lord Lieutenant could certify that, in his opinion, the intention was to create a breach of the peace. As a matter of fact, the meetings were intended to promote a no less dangerous form of crime—for crime it would be when this Bill passed—he referred to "Boycotting." Numbers of meetings had been called for that purpose, and it was an opinion very prevalently held that, in order to meet the present existing state of facts, it was absolutely necessary to give the Government power to deal with these meetings. The meetings were held to denounce certain individuals, and to recommend that the denunciation should be enforced by the sanction of
  1326
  social exclusion. Everybody knew that a denunciation of a person acquired immense force from the attendance of a large number of people at the meeting; and it was in order to grapple with the general practice of "Boycotting"—widely extended and largely diffused—it was in order to prevent public meetings for that purpose he had described amongst others, that this clause was imperatively necessary. A good deal had been said as to the vagueness of the clause, and as to the danger of intrusting the power the clause provided to the Lord Lieutenant or to anyone. There was, of course, a certain amount of risk; but hon. Members ought to see that the interposition of the Lord Lieutenant was an interposition in favour of the liberty of the subject, and not against it. The clause was not designed to prohibit all meetings. If a meeting was prohibited the prohibition must be left to some authority. That authority could not be a legal tribunal, because it was impossible, in the first instance, to say what the character of the meeting would be. The prohibition must be left to the discretion of some person, and that discretion must be regulated, not by vague statement, but by legal principles, which must be clearly defined His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had given instances of meetings, which meetings he thought would be prohibited under these words of the clause. It appeared to him (the Solicitor General for Ireland) that the words of the Bill were carefully chosen so as to prevent any interference with Constitutional liberty, and that the cases which his hon. and learned Friend had referred to were cases of meetings which would have been considered, under the Act of 1833, calculated to interfere with the due administration of the law. They were not meetings which could be thought to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. As he had said, the discretion must be left somewhere; and he thought that the guide which was afforded by this section, and the responsibility which the powers imposed upon the present Lord Lieutenant, or upon any Gentleman who might succeed him in his high and responsible position, would be a sufficient guarantee that the extensive powers of the Bill would not be used unless the Lord Lieutenant saw it was absolutely necessary for the public

  1327
  peace or public safety that they should be used. Whilst in Ireland many meetings had been prohibited, meetings which were of a perfectly Constitutional character had never been prohibited.
  MR. LALORsaid, he thought the Government were guilty of want of candour in withholding from the Committee the true meaning of the clause. Up to the present the Government had not had the courage to arrest the members of the Ladies' Land League and cast them into gaol as "suspects." They had not the courage to say that the meetings of the Ladies' League were calculated to provoke a breach of the peace; but he had no doubt that, under this clause, the Lord Lieutenant would hold the meetings were dangerous to the public safety.
  MR. GILLsaid, it was a very curious thing that, notwithstanding the appeals of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) and other hon. Members, no Member of the Government, up to the present, had given any definition whatever of the words "public safety." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had mentioned "Boycotting," and that was the only thing that ho could bring forward. He (Mr. Gill) considered that that expression, "public safety," was exceedingly vague and misleading. For instance, ho did not see why, under this Act, the Lord Lieutenant should not prohibit meetings which might be called to consider the maladministration of the Land Act. It might certainly be illegal to hold meetings to condemn the Land Act itself; but he did not see why meetings should he illegal if they were simply called to condemn the administration of that Act. But the Lord Lieutenant, with the political conscience that had been attributed to him, might see a danger to the public safety even in a meeting called to condemn the administration of the Land Act. There were very many meetings which might be prevented in a similar way. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that the administration of this Act would be quite different from anything that might bring these meetings before a Court of Justice. The Government had stopped, by refusing an Amendment to this Bill, anything which could make the administration resemble a Court of Jus-
  1328
  tice; they had refused to assent to the proposition that the reasons for prohibiting meetings should be sent up to the Lord Lieutenant in writing and upon oath. They had already refused to admit this Amendment, which was considered a great safeguard in the administration of this clause. The things that might be held to imperil the public safety would be so numerous, according to the conscience of the person who might administer this clause, that they should certainly be defined. For instance, if the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had a proper political conscience, similar to that of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and many others—if there were meetings called to interfere with Free Trade, they might be prevented in Ireland. If the conscience of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was similar to that of many hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, he might prohibit meetings called in favour of Free Trade; in fact, there was no kind of meeting, politically speaking, that might not be prevented by the great latitude given by the words "public safety." Would the Home Secretary consent to put in the word "and," instead of "or," so that the clause would read "public peace and public safety?" That would give a certain amount of protection to free political opinion in Ireland.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he trusted the Committee would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), that they should allow meetings to be held endangering the public safety. They might safely trust the Lord Lieutenant to say whether meetings, if held, would be antagonistic to the public safety. It was true that there was nothing which the English people held more dear than liberty of speech and the liberty of the Press; but he thought the Committee might fairly trust to the Lord Lieutenant in this matter.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought they—that was the English Members—might safely trust the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland to decide whether a proposed meeting was likely to be dangerous to the public safety. He would like to know whether the hon. Member would be prepared to stand up in this House and say that, under any circumstances,

  1329
  be was prepared to trust any man in England to decide whether a proposed meeting was likely to endanger the public safety? The hon. Member told them how jealous the English people were of the freedom of speech and of the right of public meeting, and, at the same time, he refused to support an Amendment which was only calculated, ever so slightly, to preserve to Ireland some vestige of freedom of speech. This Amendment was not open to the charge that it was one calculated to kill the clause. The Irish Members supported the Amendment only because they believed the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had aptly described "public safety" when he said the words conferred on the Lord Lieutenant a dubious and unlimited power. The Solicitor General for Ireland said the words had been carefully selected, so that this power should not interfere with Constitutional liberty. The hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that, at the opening of his speech, he said that this clause was one which tended to the restriction of the right of public meeting. He (Mr. Leamy) did not know what difference there was between Constitutional and public liberty.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)remarked, that he said that it interfered as little as possible with public liberty.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that, of course, he would accept the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he would like to put this question to the Committee. They all had before their minds the great agitation of the last two or three years; and he would like to ask any man on the Liberal Benches whether, if the Lord Lieutenant had had power, when the Tories were in Office, to put down any meeting which he believed would be likely to be dangerous to the public safety, that agitation would not have been put down by the simple exercise of such power? He was not now going to make any charge against the Tories; but he was perfectly certain that the majority of the Irish Conservatives believed that the land agitation was hostile to the public safety, quite independently of any interest which was likely to be assailed by that agitation. He believed that the majority of Conservatives, not merely in Ireland, but in England, were firmly convinced that the
  1330
  land agitation was at any time during the three years—certainly when it assumed any large proportions at all—hostile to the public safety. Therefore, if this Bill had been law, a Conservative Lord Lieutenant would have put these meetings down, and would have put an end to that agitation which had assisted the present Government to pass their Land Bill, and which was encouraged by the present Government so long as it served their purposes, but which they were inclined to put down now because they thought that they could do without it. It was for these reasons that he and his hon. Friends objected to these words. Any great agitation spreading over the country—any agitation which brought large masses of the people within its ranks, and which had for its object a great reform—might, in the opinion of the Government of the day, be dangerous to the public safety. And what had they to do? They would simply have to request the Lord Lieutenant to stop every meeting of such agitation, and, if called to account, they would simply point to this clause in the Act of Parliament in justification of their action. If their action were to be called into question in the House of Commons, the Chief Secretary would say, as he said to-day—
  "If I am asked any question with reference to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, I shall answer the question in the most general terms."
  Of course, if they gave this power to the Lord Lieutenant it was impossible for them to call his action into question. They were told, when the last Coercion Bill was going through the House, they might bring every case of arrest before the House, and they might, if they chose, discuss every arrest. When, however, they did bring cases of arrest before the House, what answer did the late Chief Secretary give them? He got up in his place and said he acted under an Act of Parliament which this House had passed; he exercised a reasonable suspicion under the Act, and that was all he had to do. If a meeting was prohibited in Ireland, and they asked a question of the Chief Secretary, what would he say? He would say that this House, after mature deliberation and by a large majority, gave to the Lord Lieutenant these exceptional powers, and that when they gave these exceptional powers they must have expected them to be exer-

  1331
  cised. Yes, and the Lord Lieutenant would exercise them with a vengeance! It was plain that the object of the Liberal Party was to put down proper agitation in Ireland; but he had no doubt that they would be sorry for the step they were now taking.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the great object of the Bill was to bring peace to Ireland, and he was astonished that the Irish Members did not unite with the Government in passing a measure which would assuredly conduce to the welfare of their country. For 55 years he had had in his employment between 50 and 60 Irishmen, who came every year for the hay harvest, and they had behaved remarkably well. For 55 years he had never had a complaint to make against any one of those Irish people; and at this moment there was in his house one family, some of whose members had come annually there for 85 years. It was painful to him, who had been associated with Irish people all his life, to find hon. Gentlemen opposite strenuously opposing a measure whose only object was to bring peace and tranquillity to their country, and to promote the investment of capital in that country. The lack of such investment was a matter from which Ireland greatly suffered, and anything which interfered with the public peace or public safety drove away capital. England would not invest capital in Ireland, unless the public peace there was assured, and the object of this Bill was to assure it. The opposition to this Bill was doing great injury abroad to the Irish cause, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would only unite with the Government in passing this Act, they would find the opinion of Europe was with them. In former days he heard, over and over again, complaints made in foreign countries against the English government of Ireland; but now foreigners were beginning to find that no complaint was to be made against the conduct of the English in Ireland. They were beginning to learn that the English estates in Ireland were perfectly well managed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must call the hon. Baronet's attention to the fact that he is going beyond the subject.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was sorry if he, one of the oldest Members of the House, had for a moment trans-
  1332
  gressed. If he had done so, his only excuse could be that he had been carried away by his desire to influence, as much as he could, the welfare of Ireland. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to unite with the Government in restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland, which was a most beautiful country, inhabited by a people full of humour, and having many good and attaching qualities. The ruffians who brought disgrace on it were not Irishmen, but Irish-Americans.
  MR. O'DONNELLassured the hon. and gallant Baronet who had just addressed the Committee, that the Irish Members fully recognized the warmth of the sympathies which he had expressed with regard to their country—and, indeed, if there was any chance of the hon. and gallant Baronet being appointed to carry out the provisions of this Bill—[Sir HARRY VERNEY: I would have great pleasure.]—many of their objections would vanish. All ho could do, in response to the hon. and gallant Baronet's appeal, was to assure him that if any English Government brought in a Bill for England anything akin to the atrocious character of this Bill, the Irish Members would be happy to unite with the hon. and gallant Baronet against it. They, however, had to deal in this matter with personages very different from the hon. and gallant Baronet; they had to deal with the regular supporters of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland and the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), the latter of whom, with a love of liberty worthy of Wallace, had declared that he would have no objection to leave the liberties of an entire country at the disposal of one man.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he drew a distinction between liberty and license,
  MR. O'DONNELL: Very well. The worthy countryman of Wallace would leave it to a single person to distinguish between liberty and license. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland stated that it was the object of the Government, in opposing this Amendment, to restrict public liberty in Ireland as little as possible. He would like to know if it was the object of the Government to restrict public liberty in Ireland as much as

  1333
  possible? What better form of words could they have used than the form of words which existed in their unamended clause? The Lord Lieutenant was to have power to prohibit any meeting which he believed to be prejudicial to public safety, and the Committee were allowed no definition of what the Lord Lieutenant might consider to be prejudicial to the public safety. The formula of "public safety" was a very common one to autocrats and to Jacobins. Whether to an Irish individual tyrant, or to a committee of savage repression such as was found in the French Revolution, public safety was a common formula under which could be committed any deed of crime and terrorism. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) ingenuously chose to assume that the Irish Members were pleading for permission to hold meetings dangerous to the public safety in Ireland. The Irish Members were pleading for liberty to hold public meetings in Ireland which should not be summarily prevented at the caprice, which might be prompted by malevolence or mere ignorance, of any man who might be sent over to fill the post of Lord Lieutenant. This quibble of "public safety" received a very sufficient answer before the English Courts only a couple of days ago. There was a religious movement in England operating by great assemblies and processions, and a number of magistrates took it upon themselves to stop the gatherings of the Salvation Army on the plea of public safety; on the plea that if the meetings were permitted to be held tumults and disorder might be the consequence. Justices Field and Cave, however, pointed out that assemblies whose object was not in itself unlawful could not become unlawful or dangerous to the public safety simply because some person or persons might threaten to impede and obstruct the meetings and bring about tumults and brawls. On what ground could the Lord Lieutenant forbid a public meeting in Ireland on the plea of danger to public safety? Would he apprehend that some riot would take place at the meeting? It would be the duty of the Lord Lieutenant in that case to protect a lawful meeting against the rioters. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) said there was nothing of which Englishmen were more jealous than the
  1334
  right of public meeting. Emphatically he (Mr. O'Donnell) stated that it was only with regard to public meetings in England, and with regard to the liberties of Englishmen, that the English people were jealous. There was no exercise of tyrannical power in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant which would not be supported by the English political Party to which that Lord Lieutenant belonged; and if, on the plea of public safety, the Lord Lieutenant sought, in the most brutal manner, to suppress lawful meetings in Ireland, his conduct would be treated with the same calm indifference by English public opinion which English public opinion showed when, on the plea of greater economy, English officials in India starved prisoners by hundreds in their gaols. Such a thing as sympathy with a race outside England, apart, of course, from political considerations and Party exigencies, existed only amongst a very small minority of the English people. If the Lord Lieutenant, when the clause was passed unamended, were to suppress, on the plea of public safety, every meeting called, no matter for what purpose, and if the Irish Members complained in that House of the suppression, the only answer they would receive from the Chief Secretary of the day, or from one or other Irish Officials in the House, would be that the Lord Lieutenant suppressed the meetings because, in his opinion, they were dangerous to the public safety, and the enthusiastic plaudits of the Government Party of the day would support any declaration of that description. In refusing to propose any limitation, in refusing to grant any definition which would enable the people to understand what was meant by the words "public safety," the Government simply gave a further indication of its intention to hand Ireland over to an uncontrolled and uncontrollable despotism. He did not know whether the liberators of Bulgaria had consulted any of the Turkish Pashas in this matter; but he could imagine no clause which was more worthy of Turkish domination than the present. There was no Bashi-Bazouk ever let loose in Bulgaria who did not make out that he laid waste the province out of his regard for public safety. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not agree entirely with his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford in his denunciation of this

  1335
  Bill. This clause, allowing the Lord Lieutenant to suppress meetings dangerous to the public safety, would, he was sure, only be exercised in Ireland in a number of cases in which "public safety" was, in the view of the Government, a phrase interchangeable with the phrase "safety of a Ministerial policy and Party."
  MR. MACLIVERsaid, it was a great pity that Irish Members would persist in misrepresenting the feelings of hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. Whatever might be said by Irish Members as to the right of public meeting, that right was held by Liberal Members more strongly, and more firmly, and more consistently, than it ever could be held by Irish Members. Irish Members ought to remember that the clause now before the Committee was one which was demanded by the condition of Ireland. It was folly to compare the condition of Ireland with the condition of England, and to say that the same law with regard to public meeting should be observed in Ireland as was now observed in England. It was also unfair to Members on the Liberal side of the House to say that they would have no disposition to impose on any other part of the United Kingdom except Ireland the conditions with regard to public meetings that it was proposed to impose by this clause. Liberal Members would not shrink from imposing restrictions upon the right of public meetings upon any part of the Kingdom where it was shown the state of affairs was the same as in Ireland. It was also an entire misrepresentation to say that this clause and this Bill were designed to curtail the liberty of the subject in Ireland. They were intended to put down crime in Ireland, and any meetings which, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, were calculated to promote crime, should be suppressed in the forcible and straightforward manner suggested by the Bill. Much as he would deprecate anything that would restrict public liberty and public meeting, ho supported this clause.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had said this clause was demanded by the condition of Ireland. The Committee must remember they were not now discussing the whole of the Bill, but one particular clause of the Bill. The effect of this particular clause was to enlarge the
  1336
  powers which were already possessed by the Lord Lieutenant and by the magistrates in Ireland for curtailing, in certain cases, the right of public meeting. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), when ho laid down the proposition that this clause was demanded by the condition of Ireland, should have supported his proposition by facts. The right of public meeting in Ireland was not to-day, even under the ordinary law, an absolute right. Upon information sworn by an individual, a magistrate might interfere with the right of public meeting, and the Lord Lieutenant had the power already, under the ordinary law, to interfere with meetings which might be called for the purpose of disturbing the public peace. That was a power which was now exercised by the Lord Lieutenant in very many cases. During the last two or three years it had been exercised in such a way as to lead the people to believe that the power was much too large, and, therefore, it was proper that the further enlargement of the power which was now demanded should be justified, not by general terms such as the hon. Member (Mr. Macliver) had employed, but by specific facts. Could the hon. Gentleman do that which the Government had not done— that was, prove that the powers which were already possessed in Ireland by the Crown were not sufficient to put down illegal meetings? Could the hon. Gentleman deny that meetings called for the purpose of interfering, or meetings calculated to interfere, with the public peace in Ireland, had been suppressed under the ordinary law administered by the Lord Lieutenant? If he could not deny that, upon what ground did he justify the present proposal to very largely increase the powers which, in the present state of things in Ireland, had been proved to be sufficient for their purpose? They were told that this proposal was not designed or intended to curtail public liberty in Ireland. They had not to consider what was intended by this provision, but what this provision might be capable of doing if it were carried out. The intention of the present Lord Lieutenant and of the present Chief Secretary might be very good. It was very easy to assert that these Officials had nothing but the best intentions; but he could not help remembering that the late Chief Secre-

  1337
  tary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) went to Ireland amidst the universal acknowledgment of Members on both sides of the House that his intentions were very good. The Irish knew how long the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions lasted. How long were the good intentions of Lord Spencer and the present Chief Secretary to last? It came to this, that the Committee were asked to place the power in the hands of a single individual to put down every form of public meeting in Ireland. To bring this power into operation it was not necessary there should be any evidence whatever either of illegal intent on the part of those who called the meeting, or who were about to hold the meeting, or that in the opinion of responsible persons in the locality the meeting was likely to interfere with the public safety. If an Amendment had been adopted making it necessary that before this power should be brought into play sworn information should be lodged in regard to the meetings, very much of his objection to the clause might have been removed. He objected to the clause as it now stood, because it placed an absolute power in the Lord Lieutenant, and because he refused to give absolute discretion over the liberties of a whole nation, no matter how trustworthy he might appear to be, and no matter how high-minded he might be. These were the considerations which made it necessary for him and his hon. Friends to protest against this clause. He could not help saying that he listened with feelings of very great impatience to the protestations of hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House of their desire to preserve liberty in Ireland. They told the Committee it was their desire to preserve the liberty of the subject in Ireland, and in the same breath they supported a proposal which left it at the discretion of a single man to put down every form of public meeting if he chose. The good intentions of the present Lord Lieutenant and the present Chief Secretary might not last long; but suppose those good intentions did last, how long were the present Government and the present men who ruled Ireland to continue in Office? No one could tell, and he was convinced that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) would hesitate before he placed such sweeping
  1338
  powers as were conferred by this Bill in the hands of a Tory Government. He begged the Committee to remember what the present powers of the law were in Ireland, and he asked them whether a tittle of evidence had been adduced to show that those powers had proved inefficient in the past? Unless that had been proved, he contended there was no justification for the proposal—a proposal which not only placed the right of public meeting in the hands of an individual, but which increased that penalty which might be imposed upon men who, as the law stood at present, might perhaps attend a meeting without knowing it had been proclaimed, and without knowing it was illegal in any shape or form. They were told they ought not to prolong the discussion upon every point of the Bill; but the contention was that in a Bill so drastic as this every step that the Government took along the path of coercion must be justified by facts and figures, and with regard to this proposal they had not attempted, in any shape or form, to justify their demand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) cited, in palliation, he (Mr. Redmond) supposed, of the want of evidence, that in cases like these the facts were known to the country. Well, but the facts with regard to the suppression of public meetings in Ireland, the facts with regard to the failure of the powers of the law to cope with the illegal meetings in Ireland were not known to the country, and were not known to this House. There had not been any failure on the part of the ordinary law to cope with the illegal meetings in Ireland, and he challenged the Government to prove that in any individual case the present powers possessed by the Government had not been sufficient for their purpose.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now arguing against the whole clause, and not upon the immediate Amendment before us.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that the Amendment before them was to leave out the words "public safety," and that was an Amendment which, to his mind, could be supported by the strongest arguments. He considered that the public safety under this Bill must in reality mean the same thing as the public peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor

  1339
  General for Ireland told them that meetings called for the "Boycotting" of individuals, though, perhaps, no violence might take place at those meetings, and the public peace might not be broken, could not be interfered with by this Bill unless the words "public safety" were included. He (Mr. Redmond) denied that altogether. When this Bill passed, an attempt at "Boycotting" an individual would become an offence under the Act, and any meeting called to promote the "Boycotting" of any person would be a meeting called to break the public peace, and also to interfere with public safety. Every meeting called for that purpose during the last two years had been suppressed by the powers the Lord Lieutenant already possessed. Surely that was a matter which ought to engage the very serious attention of this Committee. The scope of this clause, and the intention of the Bill, were to deal with crime in Ireland—with secret crime and secret organization. The effect of interfering in any way with public meeting would undoubtedly be to promote crime and to increase the strength of secret organization. The Government said they desired to strike at secret power; and they went about suppressing public meetings. He trusted that not only upon this point, not only with reference to this particular Amendment, but that upon the whole clause, his hon. Friends would give a persistent and determined opposition.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the retention of the words "public safety" was not worth the time the Committee had already spent upon it. Surely, when the Lord Lieutenant possessed such extensive powers as to prohibit any meeting which he had reason to believe would be dangerous to the public peace, he had ample power, and he (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had no doubt that the Law Officers would be able to make the words "public peace" elastic enough to cover any difficulty. He was surprised that the Government should insist upon retaining the words "public safety" when they had already in the clause the words "public peace." He hoped the Government would agree to omit the words "public safety" on the ground that they were really unnecessary.
  MR. HEALYnoticed that not a single Member of the Government had as yet risen to support the retention of these
  1340
  words. Two or three hon. Members on the Government side rose to maintain the Government in reference to the clause as a whole; but in reference to a restricted portion of it—namely, the desirability of maintaining public safety, the Government, even amongst their own supporters, had not had a single friend. Was not that a remarkable fact? The hon. and gallant Baronet, whose words they were always happy to hear when ho spoke in sympathy with them—whose words, he might say, came upon them like the shadow of a great rock in a weary land—had not a word to say as to the extended powers which would be given to the Government in regard to public safety under the Bill. He would point out, especially to Members like the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), that they rather misunderstood the position of the Irish Members in reference to this matter. It had been said that if the condition of England were analogous to the condition of Ireland, hon. Members would have no hesitation in supporting the Government in bringing in a Bill for the former country; but that, he would point out, was supposing a fallacy, because it supposed that hon. Gentlemen and the Government knew as much about Ireland as they knew about England. The hon. Member to whom he was particularly referring knew nothing at ail about Ireland, except what he read out of the English newspapers; and those journals, it should be remenbered, got their information from a few Orange editors connected with the Irish Press. He was astonished that there were still Members to be found to get up in this House and repeat this time-worn fallacy; and he maintained that Gentlemen opposite, who at present formed Her Majesty's Ministry and their supporters, were as incompetent to legislate for Ireland as they were to legislate for Madagascar. He should like to make the position of the Irish Party, with regard to this Amendment, clear. Of course, they did not hope to pass the Amendment. They did not hope to carry any Amendment of any kind whilst the Home Secretary had the management of the Bill; but they wanted to be able to say, when crime redoubled—as undoubtedly it would—"Crime has redoubled; we told you it would." He wished to be able to point

  1341
  out to the Government that the arguments of the Irish Members were looked upon as stupid, and laughed at. Well, they hoped that during the three years that this Bill had to run, or when the period had passed away and they found on the Treasury Bench a Ministry somewhat more sympathetic, in consequence of what had gone before, this new Ministry would be willing to listen to them, and would say—"Your arguments were right before, and we are sorry that you were not listened to." Quite lately, a most remarkable statement had come from the Government through the mouth of the highest Official in the Irish Executive—namely, the Lord Lieutenant—to the effect that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Administration to drive public discontent in that country beneath the surface. That, he maintained, was one of the most unfortunate admissions that had ever come from the mouth of a Lord Lieutenant. Earl Cowper had told them this at Belfast, after the arrests of the "suspects," and again on leaving Dublin. This Bill would drive Irish discontent beneath the surface, because the people would find that it was too dangerous to take part in open agitation, and they would, therefore, be obliged to have resort to private agitation. If the Irish people were unable to understand the changes which had been made in the law, and in view of the fact that the Government were endeavouring to drive their discontent beneath the surface, they would, in the words of Shakespeare, "Take the law into their own hands and break it." The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had asked them what was their remembrance of public safety? Surely they remembered the phrase being made use of by Robespierre and his followers, and they had not heard those words, except in Lord Grey's Act, since the famous days of 1793. He was referring to the days when men's heads were taken off by a Committee of Public Safety. But in those days, although that Committee consisted of several individuals, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary now proposed to leave public safety in the hands of one man. The power the right hon. and learned Gentleman was bestowing upon Officials in the Bill was far more vast than hon. Members seemed to think. The Lord Lieutenant would have power to put
  1342
  down a meeting, whether public or private. He would ask this. What was an assembly of people at Mass, but a public meeting; what was an assembly of people in a chapel, or a church, or a meeting-house, but a public meeting; and, under this clause, what was there to restrain the Lord Lieutenant, if he chose to do so, from preventing people attending services at meeting-houses, chapels, and churches? Under this clause, meetings of Presbyterians in the North of Ireland could be prevented; and if there should be a recurrence there of public bigotry, similar to that private bigotry which manifested itself in this country, there would be power in the hands of, perhaps, some of the strongest bigots to put down every kind of public worship in Ireland. It might be argued, for instance, that the priests, whom, by the way, The Saturday Review had called "surpliced ruffians," were in the habit of haranguing their congregations on political subjects at Mass. The Government had arrested several priests; and, in the interests of what they were pleased to call "public safety," they might interfere still further with these gentlemen, and put down almost all the religious observances of the people in Ireland. He was not referring in particular to the Protestant Provinces of Ireland, or the Catholic Provinces; but he maintained that wherever there was to be a meeting of the people—wherever the people assembled together, three constituting a meeting—there would be power in the hands of the Executive to suppress such meeting. It had been fallaciously argued that the Government already possessed that power. In one sense, no doubt, it was true that the police had had the power of dispersing meetings at the point of the bayonet, or by the use of a few buckshot; but it was not the fact that the Lord Lieutenant, for the purposes of public safety, had had the power of putting down all manner of public meetings in Ireland. He would call attention to the fact that any action bringing a person under this Bill would be punished by six months' imprisonment. If a man took part in a public meeting, six months' imprisonment; if he took part in a riot, six months' imprisonment; if he took forcible possession, six months' imprisonment; if he ran a newspaper against the wishes of

  1343
  the Government, six months' imprisonment; strike high, or strike low, the punishment was the same—six months' imprisonment. He would appeal to the Government whether it was really necessary to maintain this extravagant provision in their measure? Not a single Member on the Government side of the House had risen to support it, except the Home Secretary and the Solicitor General; and beyond theirs, not a single argument in its favour had been used. No doubt, the Government had many willing assistants, and that many hon. Members would support them on their side of the House. Whatever the Government did there were many hon. Members who would throw up their hats and cry—"Well done!" But there were none of them ready to get up and defend, by their speeches, the retention of the words "public safety" in the Bill. The Home Secretary had made many trips in his operations recently. He had prosecuted members of the Salvation Army, and, by an extraordinary misapplication of the law, he had attempted to make them give security for the maintenance of the peace. He had failed in his endeavour, and why? Because he should have attempted, not to make them give security against breaches of the peace, but to give security for good behaviour. In this Bill, in a similar manner, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had mixed up security for the peace and security for public safety. If he had prosecuted the Salvation Army with the object of getting them to give security for good behaviour, no doubt he would have been successful; but he had mixed up the two things just as he was mixing up two things in this measure. He (Mr. Healy) would invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could not accede to the Amendment they were now discussing, at any rate, to agree to omit from the clause the word "or," and insert the word "and." That was to say, the clause, instead of running thus—
  "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time," &c, "prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety,"
  should run—
  "Prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace and the public safety."
  He had no objection to the concurrence
  1344
  of the two words "peace" and "safety;" but he did object to the clause as it stood. This latter point was not a very large one, but he thought it was worthy of consideration.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he begged to support the Amendment. This seemed to some Members of the Committee to be a very small matter. The Amendment only consisted of four words; but he ventured to say that there were no words in the Bill so strong as these. Like a great many other clauses, this one was drawn in a very elastic, and, it did not seem to him, a proper manner. The Lord Lieutenant would have power to prohibit any meeting he had reason to believe would be dangerous to the public peace; and one would think that such a power as that would be quite sufficient without going into the question of public safety. What did "public safety" mean? The Government pretended that they only asked for power to prevent crime, and further powers to enable them to govern Ireland in such a manner as to preserve the public peace. Well, if the Committee granted all these tilings to punish for what had been committed in the past, and regulate what was to bo done in the future, he did not see why it could not be done without going into this question of the public safety. Looking at the present condition of Ireland, they could not fail to see that there was a great deal of meaning in this clause. As he read it, it meant nothing less than this—that for the future no section of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland should have the power of holding a meeting for any purpose, particularly if its object was in any way connected with politics, or the rights and extended privileges of the people. He ventured to say that, under this clause, the Lord Lieutenant would be able to put down any agitation whatever, whether it were for Home Rule or connected with the Land Question, whether it had reference to an extension of the fisheries or the construction of piers, the improvement of harbours or the extension of the franchise. Meetings in connection with all these subjects it would be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to put a stop to. Such a power, he contended, was too much to give to an Executive officer of a Constitutional Government. If they looked back at the seed sown by the landlords, if they

  1345
  looked to the history of the country, and traced the circumstances which had led to its present condition, they would see great reason why they ought not to draw the knot too tight for fear of snapping the rope. It had already been pointed out by an hon. Member that the men who were evicted from their homes were now hungry men and dangerous men. The hon. Member for Galway had said that if he had been turned out of his holding, with his wife and children, on the roadside, and had been obliged to look on while those depending on him sickened and died, the chances were that he, too, would become a dangerous man. Well, with so many evictions, and so many hungry and dangerous men in Ireland, he ventured to say that this clause, passing as it was without amendment, would be in the future pregnant, not of good government and peace, but of that which would lead to the suppression of public meetings for any purpose whatever in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 56: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, there existed on the other side of the House, as the division had shown, a strong opinion against this unrestrained interference with the right of public meeting on the part of the Lord Lieutenant. What he would propose, therefore, was this—that they should insert this Proviso—
  "Provided, That this section shall not apply in the case of any meeting to promote or oppose the candidature of any person seeking election as a Member of the House of Commons or of any other representative body."
  It appeared to him that this was an Amendment which every Member of the House ought to support. It proposed merely that the power of the Lord Lieutenant should be restrained so far as meetings for bonâ fide electoral purposes were concerned. It was well known that at certain periods meetings were obliged to be held for electoral purposes, and that "Boycotting" meetings, and meetings with the object of inducing landlords to reduce their rents, could not be held under cover of electoral objects. Her Majesty's Government surely would not be afraid to adopt a system that was
  1346
  practised in France. In that country these public meetings at electoral periods took place without hindrance. There was likely to be an election in Mallow in a very short time, as it was probable that the Attorney General for Ireland would be going where "Obstruction ceased from troubling and the weary were at rest." Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman came into the enjoyment of his dignified repose, he (Mr. Healy) wished to make provision for the unrestrained right of public meeting during the contest which would ensue upon his retirement.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 16, after "safety," insert—"Provided, That this section shall not apply in the case of any meeting to promote or oppose the candidature of any person seeking election as a Member of the House of Commons or of any other representative body."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he entirely agreed with the principle of the Amendment; but he could not accept it in exactly the terms in which it was offered. If the hon. Member would agree to a modification of the clause, so as to make his object clearer, he (Sir William Harcourt) would be very glad to see whether words could not be devised to carry out the object in view.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should be very happy, under those circumstances, to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the next Amendment he had to propose was to insert the sub-section—
  "A copy of such order shall be forthwith served in the prescribed manner on the promoters of such meeting, if known."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 16, after "safety," insert the following sub-section:—"A copy of such order shall be forthwith served in the prescribed manner on the promoters of such meeting, if known."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no objection to this Amendment; but he should prefer that the words "if possible" should be inserted after the word "manner."
  MR. HEALYsaid, ho should be willing to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal if his Amendment were agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he begged to move the sub-section to provide that threats, or alleged threats, on the part of any persons whatever, to interrupt with violence a public meeting should not be a reason for the prohibition of such meeting. He hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment, which would cover a class of cases which were of considerable importance to the Irish Members. It was well known that a great many cases had occurred, especially in the Province of Ulster, where attempts had been made by the landlords to prevent those interested in the affairs of the tenantry from holding meetings to agitate for an amelioration of their condition. The landlords and their agents had circulated statements to the effect that they would forcibly interfere with such meetings or demonstrations, and the Government in consequence had felt themselves bound to send a sufficient force into those districts to secure peace and prohibit meetings, in the interests, of course, of one party—the landlord party. In the future, if meetings were to be prohibited in consequence of threats to the effect that the opposite party would interfere with a meeting of tenants, no meetings would be held. In the North of Ireland, when the Orange Party had chosen to hold meetings, they had not been interfered with by the Land League; but, on the other hand, the Orange Party had very frequently published notices and placards, calling on their friends to attack the meetings of the Land League or of the tenantry, and drive those who took part in them from the field. Of course, as a matter of fact, while, in spite of these placards and threatening notices, the meetings were held, in not a single instance had the persons who had threatened put in an appearance. Their announced intention had been to drive the holders of the meetings like dogs across the Boyne, but they had never done so; they had hen afraid. In many instances, however, their threats had been communicated to Dublin Castle, whence, the belief being entertained
  1348
  that there was danger of a breach of the peace, instructions wore issued to the police to suppress the meetings. He only mentioned these points to show the Government that this Amendment had been drawn up in no spirit of Obstruction, but that it was a serious Amendment, and that unless it was adopted the issue of threatening notices would be an absolute prohibition of all meetings that were not Orange meetings North of the Boyne.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 16, after "safety," insert "Provided always, That threats, or alleged threats, on the part of any persons whatever, to interrupt with violence a public meeting, shall not be a reason for the prohibition of such a meeting."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, everyone knew that rival meetings were the cause of considerable disturbance in Ireland, and to accept this Amendment would be to tie the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman scarcely met the case put by his hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that there wore rival factions in Ireland, and that, where meetings were held by these rival factions, there was a great prospect of a breach of the peace being committed. Probably, then, it was desirable that meetings, where these factions existed, should be protected; but, as a rule, it was not the case, where meetings in the interests of the tenant farmers were held, that the opposite party was a party of any appreciable strength; and what his hon. Friend desired was that the mere announcement by a person that there would be a disturbance should not be sufficient to induce the Lord Lieutenant to suppress a meeting. Any landlord, or agent, or bailiff, or hanger-on about these people—and he need not inform the Committee that there were many hangers-on who were only too ready to make mischief—would be able, without difficulty, to put a stop to a meeting which might be objectionable to him by simply writing to the authorities to say that there was likely to be a disturbance, or by posting up a placard to the same effect. Or a bailiff or a hanger-on could

  1349
  publish an advertisement in an Orange paper threatening to interfere with the meeting, and that would be decided by the authorities to be evidence that there was danger of a breach of the peace. The Lord Lieutenant should use his discretion, and have power to refuse to put a stop to a meeting unless he thought sufficient reason had been shown for such a course. He (Mr. Sexton) did not mean to say that where there really were two serious rival factious meetings they should be allowed to take place; but where there were not two great factions, where only one individual, or a small group of individuals, objected to the course about to be taken by the majority, he did not think that any announcement or threat of theirs should be allowed by the Lord Lieutenant to interfere with the holding and peaceable conduct of a meeting or demonstration.
  MR. DILLONsaid, it was not true, as the Home Secretary had stated, that if this Amendment were passed the hands of the Lord Lieutenant would be tied. That functionary was entitled, at the present moment, to prohibit meetings where he had reason to believe they would be dangerous to the public peace. He (Mr. Dillon) would mention a case, with all the circumstances of which he was acquainted, which would show how easy it would be, unless there were some proper safeguards adopted, for a single individual, or a small clique, to put a a stop to a legitimate meeting. A meeting had been convened in favour of the Land League at a place in County Fermanagh. The local landlord was strongly opposed to this meeting, and the local Orange Lodge put up a notice to the effect that they would drive those who intended to hold the meeting like dogs out of the district. Well, the magistrates of the place dined with the landlord, and on the occasion of this social meeting had informations sworn before them that there was likely to be a disturbance if the Land League meeting were held. It had since been discovered that the men who swore the informations were immediately under the influence of this local landlord. The whole thing was concocted at the landlord's table; information was sent up to Dublin Castle, with the result that the Lord Lieutenant prohibited the meeting. An enormous number of people came into the town, and it was with the utmost difficulty that the
  1350
  leaders of the popular Party prevented a collision taking place between the soldiery and the people. All the people were with the Land League, and the only danger of a disturbance arose from the fact that, acting upon these sworn informations, a military force was sent down from Enniskillen. So general was the opinion in favour of the meeting that no Orangeman would have dared to interfere with it. What was desired on this occasion was that the Lord Lieutenant should not accept the posting of threatening placards by single individuals as an evidence that there was likely to be a disturbance in the district. The Lord Lieutenant should not act upon entirely baseless rumours, but should inquire into the matter, and satisfy himself that there was real danger of a breach of he peace. Where there was a powerful faction opposed to a very small minority he should not be persuaded that there was likely to be any danger.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the words of the Amendment would exactly do. What he understood to be the desire was, that a meeting which would not be stopped by the Lord Lieutenant under the former words should not be stopped through a device of the kind suggested by hon. Members. He quite agreed that this kind of thing ought not to be allowed to take place, and he would therefore undertake to introduce into the Bill words calculated to render the success of such a device impossible.
  Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he proposed to insert, at the end of the first paragraph, this Proviso—
  "Provided, however, that the Lord Lieutenant shall not issue such order unless by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland."
  One of the things he objected to most strenuously in the whole Bill was this clause, and the unrestricted nature of the personal and despotic power that the Lord Lieutenant would possess under it. This was a fair specimen of the kind of power that was to be found in the Bill. The Lord Lieutenant, of his own motion, might say what class of meeting was to be prohibited, and for what reason it was to be prohibited, and might act upon the merest hint or whis-

  1351
  per that he received. There was nothing to guide them as to the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant would exorcise his powers. On looking through the Bill he found there were occasions upon which the Lord Lieutenant would he bound to consult the Privy Council of Ireland—when, for instance, he proposed to proclaim a district. On such an occasion ho would be bound to consult the Privy Council, and without doing so he would not be allowed to proclaim a district. He (Mr. Sexton) further found, on reference to Clause 25, that the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, make, and when made revoke, add to, and alter rules in relation to certain matters which were stated in the Bill. He (Mr. Sexton) was at a loss to see why the Lord Lieutenant should be released from a similar obligation in reference to such an important matter as the prohibition of a public meeting, He did not for a moment conceal the fact that he had no admiration whatever for the Privy Council of Ireland. He thought it was about the worst constituted body to take part in the government of a country of anybody in the world. It consisted of the heads of the Military Profession, the Judges, and persons in the pay of the Crown, who had no sympathy whatever with the people of Ireland; who, in fact, had gained their position by desertion of the popular cause, and who now hated that cause with all the hatred of renegades. But so much did he feel that unrestricted power of this kind was bad for the people who exercised it, and bad for the people over whom it was exercised, that he would rather amend the Bill by requiring the Lord Lieutenant to have the concurrence of the Privy Council, than leave the powers of the section solely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 16, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "Provided however, That the Lord Lieutenant shall not issue such order unless by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, as he did not think the Lord Lieutenant should be
  1352
  allowed to shelter himself behind the Privy Council. He would rather leave the power solely with the Lord Lieutenant.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, ho thought they had discussed this matter somewhat fully upon Clause 1. With regard to the Lord Lieutenant's right of suspending trial by jury, it had been suggested that the responsibility should rest upon various other bodies, under cover of the Privy Council; but the House had come most decidedly to the determination that in a matter of such grave importance the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant ought to be undivided. As had been already stated, the Government, as a whole, were responsible for the action of the Lord Lieutenant, and he and the Government could be called to account by Parliament. It was far better, therefore, that the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant should be undivided.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought they ought to be consistent in this matter. Ho must confess that he had never seen a greater mass of inconsistency than was to be found in this Bill. In the proclamation of a district, and in. the subsequent clauses, the Lord Lieutenant was required to seek the aid of the Privy Council. Here, however, it was sought to vest in him undivided responsibility. He (Mr. P. Martin) agreed with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that though the Irish Privy Council was, as at present constituted, a body which certainly demanded sweeping reformation, yet there was this reason for its introduction in the section—that it preserved some semblance, at least, of that which the present Government apparently sought to ignore—namely, the right of Irishmen in some way to intervene and have some voice in the conduct of their own affairs. As an Irishman, he desired Irishmen to have a voice in the management of their own affairs. So long as they had a voice in the management of their own affairs the better would those affairs be managed; and he did contend, although he had not a very high opinion of the Irish Privy Council, that, for the sake of giving Irishmen some voice in a matter of this description, he should feel himself compelled to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) if it were pressed to a division.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was a distinction to be drawn between the functions to be performed by the Lord Lieutenant under the present section, and those under the section dealing with the proclaiming of a district. Under the present clause, the suppression of a meeting would be an Executive act; whereas the proclaiming of a district was a matter of general policy, and did not affect any individual case—it applied to a whole district. It had always been the case, in matters of this kind, that where large districts were concerned the Privy Council should be appealed to; but that where the action to be taken was of a less general character the Lord Lieutenant should act upon his own responsibility. It might be right or it might be wrong to have this clause in the Bill; but if the Bill was to have any practical utility at all, it would be impossible to accept such Amendments as this. If it were accepted, there would not be time between the receipt of the information that the meeting was about to be held, and the time at which that assembly would take place, to summon the Privy Council and hold a meeting. These meetings in the country districts were held under such circumstances that very often the Executive knew nothing about them until the night before they were to be held. It was thoroughly idle, therefore, to say that the Lord Lieutenant should consider the information he received, and call together the Privy Council in time to be able to take action, if action were necessary. It was said that this was a mere matter of form, this summoning of the Privy Council; and, whether it was or not, in a great many cases it would be utterly impossible for the Privy Council to be summoned, and after a consultation to take action, until the meeting it was called to consider was all over.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he would remind the Committee that in 1843, in the case of the proclaiming of the famous Clontarf meeting in Dublin, what occurred was this. It was believed that the meeting was likely to be a dangerous one, and the hurried arrangement which the Solicitor General for Ireland had referred to was made at once. The Privy Council were summoned, and, unless he was very much mistaken, the famous proclamation to put a stop to
  1354
  this meeting was issued only the night before the day upon which 50,000 or 60,000 people were expected to assemble. Every possible care was taken to prevent a collision between the military and the people. The hon. Member (Mr. P. Martin) had referred to the constitution of the Privy Council; and, as he had done so, it was but right that he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) should make him a present of this one remark. On the occasion when the Privy Council met to proclaim the Clontarf meeting, the only person who opposed its being proclaimed was an official of the Government, none other than Sir Edward Blakeley. He it was who, in advance of all the other members of the Privy Council, desired to preserve the liberty of the people.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the Solicitor General for Ireland had misled the Committee, although, no doubt, unintentionally. It was not necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to consult the Privy Council in the case of proclaiming a meeting when it was thought likely to be dangerous. Under such circumstances a meeting could be proclaimed at any moment. The Lord Lieutenant could proclaim a meeting without the consent of the Privy Council, and anyone who attended that meeting would be liable to imprisonment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not want to misrepresent the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Committee would see whether he had rightly understood him or not. He took it that his objection to giving the Privy Council the right of consulting with the Lord Lieutenant before a meeting was proclaimed was because information of a meeting that was likely to be dangerous might only be received on the eve of that meeting, and that there would, therefore, not be time to call the Privy Council together. Was that a fair representation of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? ["Yes!"] He might take it that that was the case. He was astonished, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a barrister of many years' practice, and who had achieved great success, had endeavoured to make use of such an argument, which showed the real meaning of the whole clause. The Lord Lieutenant, it was said, might only hear of a meeting on the eve of that meeting, and His Excel-

  1355
  ency would issue his proclamation, therefore, almost simultaneously with his receipt of information. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would recall this argument to the attention of the Government when they came to the next portion of the clause.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the objection that there would not be time to call the Privy Council together appeared to him to be one without the slightest force. The members of the Privy Council, or rather a large number of them, resided quite close to Dublin, and their services, if they were required, could be availed of almost immediately. In the case of the Clontarf meeting, which was to have been held on the Sunday, six hours before the day on which the people were expected to assemble—because he believed it was not until 6 o'clock on the Saturday night that the decision was arrived at—the proclamation was issued. It had been pointed out that by leaving out all reference to the Privy Council in this clause, they left the Lord Lieutenant with an undivided responsibility, and rendered that official and the Government responsible to the House. But what was the value of that responsibility, when the Irish Members, and those who supported the popular Party in Ireland, were only a very small minority in the House? Surely, it was known very well that whatever was done by the Lord Lieutenant, or by the Government, if called in question in Parliament, would be flatted by the large majority of Members. What the Irish Members wanted to do, and all that it was in their power to do, was to have such safeguards put into the Bill as they thought necessary at the time of the passing of the measure. So far as the responsibility of the Government was concerned, all it ever came to was a badgering for some time by half-a-dozen Members, who had no weight, and whoso utterances had no effect upon Parliament. It did no good to badger the Lord Lieutenant or the Government; but, as it was quite conformable with ordinary legislation of this kind to fetter the Lord Lieutenant with the necessity of appealing to the Privy Council, he trusted this Amendment, to safeguard the interests of those who wished to hold public meetings, would be accepted.
  MR. SHELLsaid, it seemed to him that the hon. and learned Solicitor
  1356
  General for Ireland had argued in such a way as to entirely upset the arguments of the Home Secretary. The Solicitor General's argument was that the Privy Council could not be summoned because there would be no time to do it. Then they might take it that at the very last moment a telegram must be received from some police official, or some private individual, saying that a certain meeting was to be held and that the peace was likely to be broken, and that then, on his own responsibility, the Lord Lieutenant was to say whether or not that meeting should be allowed to take place. Surely such a thing was impossible. It stood to reason, what the Irish Members argued over and over again on this and other parts of the Bill, that the responsibility the Government intended to take upon themselves, or throw upon the Lord Lieutenant, would be necessarily relegated by him to other individuals, for whom he could not be in a position to answer, and with whom ho could have had no conference. Suppose a meeting was to be held on Sunday, and the Lord Lieutenant only received notice of it on Saturday night, how could he come to a conclusion? He could only do so upon information that he received that the meeting ought to be suspended. On that recommendation ho would suspend the meeting. Surely this was not on his own responsibility. He (Mr. Sheil) denied any such statement. If the Lord Lieutenant really did act upon his own responsibility, he should not so much object to the Bill, particularly in the hands of the noble Lord who at present filled the position of Viceroy; but they had argued it over and over again, and now once more they had to repeat the argument, and to remind the Committee that it was not the Lord Lieutenant who was responsible. The people who really would be responsible, and were responsible, were people whom Parliament would never be able to bring to book. Parliament knew nothing of them. He would point out to the Government that most of the objections to the clauses in this Bill were on the score of this responsibility. The Government said the Lord Lieutenant would be responsible; but that was really not so, because this high official received his information from parties all over Ireland who were in a position far beneath him, and of whom he knew very little.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that, whenever any doubt arose as to any clause of this Bill, the Irish Members claimed the benefit of the doubt for liberty, while the Government claimed the benefit of the doubt for tyranny; and, unhappily, the majority of the Committee seemed inclined to go with the Government in every case. It was, no doubt, pleasant for hon. Gentlemen to be saved the trouble of making up their own minds, and to leave two or three Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to perform that duty for them. His hon. Friend had said that, according to the showing of the Attorney General himself, the Lord Lieutenant claimed to act in the matter on the spur of the moment. He could not have time to consider. The Bill was intended not to give him time to make any inquiry into the truth of allegations in telegrams that might be sent to him. Some fine evening a telegram might be sent to him stating that on the following morning a meeting was to be held in some part of the country which would constitute a great peril to the public peace and public safety. Not a moment's time was given to the Lord Lieutenant to reflect or inquire whether the information was well-founded; but he was forthwith to take action upon it. Suppose the Lord Lieutenant was easily alarmed, as such people had been from time to time, then, of course, in the working of this measure a good deal would depend upon the personal character and temper of the Lord Lieutenant for the time being. A story was told of a Lord Lieutenant, a good many years ago, who was persecuted with alarming reports by a class of eople in Ireland who found it their interest to work upon his fears, and who were then, as now, the opponents of freedom and public liberty in Ireland. They continually poured letters into the Lord Lieutenant's hands giving accounts of terrible affairs about to happen throughout the country. One morning, one of these gentlemen rushed hastily into the Lord Lieutenant's bedroom, and exclaimed—"Oh! my Lord, the people of Dublin are all about to rise!" His Excellency was a man of some discretion and judgment, and his reply was, that ho thought it was about time for everybody to rise. But there might be a Lord Lieutenant of very much less firmness of character than that gentleman, and one who might, on simi-
  1358
  lar information, take the very opposite course, by telegraphing orders to prevent public meetings from taking place. Such things were possible, and Irish Members felt perfectly certain that under this measure such things would occur from time to time; therefore, it was not too much to ask that the Lord Lieutenant should be required to consult either his Privy Council or some other body upon the necessity for taking action before acting upon alarming and probably absurd announcements made by frightened or ill-meaning individuals. For these reasons, he supported the Amendment, as he thought every lover of liberty ought to do.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 213: Majority 172.—(Div. List, No. 141.)
  MR. PARNELLproposed an Amendment, which he hoped the Government would agree to accept—namely, in line 16, after "safety," to insert—
  "Provided, That in case of meetings for lawful objects summoned by handbill, placard, or other public advertisement, and whereof six days' notice has been given, the Lord Lieutenant shall give by similar notice in the district at least three clear days' notice of such prohibition."
  The object of that Amendment was to provide that where six days' notice was given of a meeting, the Lord Lieutenant should give a notice of half that period, warning people not to attend the meeting. The reasonable character of that Amendment was apparent on the face of it, because, if suitable notice was not given to people in any locality where a meeting was summoned to be held, many of the people who lived perhaps 10 miles or 15 miles from the place of meeting would attend without any knowledge that the meeting had been prohibited, and that they had rendered themselves liable to imprisonment for six months with hard labour. The way in which this clause was drafted illustrated the sweeping character of the whole Bill. There was not the slightest safeguard against persons being swept into one wide net and sentenced to imprisonment; and it would appear as if the promoters of the Bill desired to envelop the Government in Ireland in a suit of armour in which there should not be the slightest possible chink, and, at the same time, to provide the Govern-

  1359
  ment with a weapon of such a character as would enable them to strike down every form of Constitutional agitation. There was not the slightest safeguard provided for the liberties and rights of the subject in any part of the Bill, just as there was a similar absence of any proviso or safeguard in this clause; and one of the reasons why it was so necessary to insist on drawing attention to this matter was that these clauses wore all, one after the other, characterized by that utter want of any sort of consideration for Constitutional rights in Ireland. Nothing was thought of except the desire to arm the Crown in a way in which it had never been armed before in any Constitutionally-governed country, and to take away every right, liberty, and safeguard in respect to the exercise of Constitutional privileges. He hoped the Government, by according a different reception to this Amendment to that given to others, would show that they were sensible of the necessity of altering the character of this clause, at least to this extent.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in a matter in which prompt action might be a primary object, it was equally important that the Government should not be bound by conditions of time; but by this Amendment the Government would be strictly bound, while it by no means followed that the promoters of a meeting would also be strictly bound. The Government would be absolutely bound to three days; but it might very well be that a handbill, or other notice of a meeting, might be posted at a place of which the Government might have no cognizance, or the handbills might be passed on from hand to hand, and not posted; and he thought it extremely likely that even when a notice was posted it might not come to the knowledge of the Government within the three days laid down. Though the Government were not willing to accept this Amendment, or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), which was also on the Paper, still they did not wish to take anybody by surprise, or to betray anyone into finding himself in opposition to the law without being fully aware of it. The provision which the Government preferred provided that
  1360
  these meetings should be conducted with due formality and publicity, and that was practically the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), which was lower down on the Paper. That Amendment, with hardly any alteration, the Government would be willing to accept. They had already accepted the Amendment, providing that a copy of any order of prohibition should be served on the promoters of the meeting, and they thought if they accepted these two Amendments all the conditions of publicity would be met.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, ho was sorry that the Chief Secretary bad not met his objection, or the necessity for pressing his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government might not receive notice of a meeting until the time for prohibition had elapsed. All he could say was, that that was a question of detail, and his object was to secure for the people of a district notice of the prohibition before they arrived at the place of meeting. He thought that a reasonable requirement; but if the Government wished to provide that a copy of a notice convening a meeting should be served at the nearest police station to the place of meeting, he would he willing to introduce such a Proviso. If the right hon. Gentleman thought six days' notice was too short a time, and that the three days might elapse before the Lord Lieutenant or the authorities in Dublin could receive information of an intended meeting and its character, then let the time be extended, say, to 10 days. The principle of the Amendment, however, he must insist upon—namely, that the people of a district should have public notice beforehand, for a reasonable time, that the Lord Lieutenant had prohibited the meeting in question. As to the provision of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny—namely, that two magistrates should attend at the meeting, that was reasonable in its way; but it did not attain the object he wished to attain—the object which the Chief Secretary had admitted to be a reasonable one; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and agree to the principle of the Amendment, although the terms might be altered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, when the Govern-

  1361
  ment agreed to serve notice of prohibition on the promoters of a meeting, they supposed that that would be a sufficient notice through the promoters; but there was another objection to this Amendment. The Amendment proposed that the Government should have no power to prohibit a meeting unless they did so three days before the day of the meeting. Suppose the Government did not learn the dangerous nature of a meeting until two days before the day, they would not be able to prohibit the meeting, although they then knew the dangerous character of it.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that the notices of meetings were usually made to the people on Sunday by means of placards posted at the chapels in the district. Some time ago a meeting was announced in his own county, and, although the meeting had been notified for 10 days, the proclamation did not arrive until the evening of the Friday before the meeting was to be held. The time was so short that it was almost impossible to countermand the meeting. However, on receipt of a telegram, he went to the meeting, and with great difficulty stopped it. It was not an unreasonable proposal to make that where a meeting was convened to take place, where it would be difficult to countermand it, that every facility should be given for the purpose of stopping it.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he did not think the argument of the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) against the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would bear a moment's examination. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government might not, if the Amendment were adopted, receive notice of the dangerous character of a meeting until it was too late to prohibit it. But suppose the dangerous character of the meeting was only made known to the Lord Lieutenant within the three days specified in the Amendment, ho would still have power to stop the meeting. The difficulty was that, if the Bill were passed in its present form, the Government would be able to give six months' imprisonment to anyone who attended the meeting, although he might have had no notice whatever that it had been proclaimed. Irish Members stood on that point. They said, unless sufficient notice was given to the people that the
  1362
  meeting was prohibited, the Government had no right to punish them with six months' imprisonment for attending.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the case suggested by the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) was one which could scarcely ever arise. He had often seen placards giving two months' notice in advance of meetings to be held, and they almost invariably gave a fortnight's notice. As his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) had pointed out, notices were given Sunday after Sunday at the chapels in the various districts. Even if the case put by the hon. and learned Gentleman were to arise, the Lord Lieutenant would still have power to prohibit the meeting. He pressed upon the Government the reasonableness of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, in listening to the arguments of hon. Members opposite, the Government were aware that they spoke with a knowledge of the situation. But the two reasons urged by the Attorney General and himself stood in the way of the adoption of the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. They were willing to insert words to the effect that the proclamation of the prohibition should be published at the earliest possible moment; but further than that they could not go.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he regretted that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant did not see his way to accept the Amendment before the Committee. It must be remembered that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had made a concession upon the original Amendment. The first proposal was that the Government should be bound to give three days' notice of prohibition in any case; but when it was shown that the Government might not have any information with regard to the meeting, his hon. Friend consented that notice should be given at the nearest police-station. His hon. Friend now instructed him to say that he went farther than that, and was willing to agree that notice of the meeting should be given 10 days in advance at the nearest police station. According to that arrangement, the Government would have sufficient notice of what was going to be done, and plenty of time to make up their minds on the subject of the meeting. He trusted the

  1363
  Government would be able to make this small concession. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin,) he believed, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had had as large an experience of public meetings as ho had, he would know that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, which he had signified his readiness to adopt, was of the most illusory character. Anyone who was acquainted with the character of public meetings in Ireland would know that in the majority of cases they were so large that a man with stentorian lungs would probably fail in making his voice reach to the circumference of these enormous gatherings. The presence of the magistrates, then, who, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, were to read the proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, would probably have the effect of exasperating the people, and producing the disorder which it was desired to avoid. He trusted the Government would give and take, so to speak, in dealing with this matter. The only object of Irish Members was that innocent people should not be caught without a fair warning, and subjected to the penalty prescribed in the Bill for the venial offence of attending a meeting.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, ho did not see that the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was a very practicable one, because, were 10 days' notice of the intention to hold any meeting always required, great inconvenience might result. Such a machinery as that would, he thought, be more adverse to the general right of public meeting than almost anything else. It seemed to him that his right hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated the case very reasonably. Her Majesty's Government could not bind themselves to any particular number of days within which the notice of prohibition should be given, because it was possible that circumstances which would render the meeting dangerous to public peace or public safety might arise within a very brief period of the meeting taking place. The Government were willing that the Lord Lieutenant should give notice, at the earliest possible moment, when the knowledge of danger to the
  1364
  public peace presented itself to him; that, in fact, he should lose no time in communicating with the parties concerned.
  MR. PARNELLthought the Government refusals to admit Amendments of the most reasonable character were standing very much in the way of their own progress.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have just accepted three Amendments.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, these were of a. very subordinate kind. He had simply asked that persons attending meetings of which 10 days' notice had been given should be exempt from the penal consequence of being liable to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, unless the Lord Lieutenant prohibited the meeting three days beforehand. The Committee would bear in mind that the Lord Lieutenant would still have power to prohibit and disperse a meeting irrespective of the three days' notice. As to the dangerous consequences of the speeches delivered which the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) anticipated would arise, owing to the meeting being hold without prohibition, he pointed out that at the last moment the Lord Lieutenant had always power to prohibit a meeting; and, as had been proved during the last 12 months, he could send police and soldiers on the very morning of the meeting to stop it, when, as had always been the case, the people would be ready to obey and retire. The Government had not attempted to show the necessity either for refusing this Amendment, or for bringing forward the clause. He had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, last night, whether he could give any instance in the course of the land agitation of a prohibited meeting being held, and ho declined to reply. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave no instance of any case where the people refused to disperse and abstain from holding a meeting when called upon to do so by the magistrates, and yet he preserved a cast-iron front and unbending attitude in reference to this reasonable Amendment.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, bethought the Government might very well accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which did not in anyway militate against their professed intention to prevent the possibility of danger to the public peace or public safety. It had been pointed out that all this

  1365
  could be secured by the dispersion of the meeting at the last moment; and he was, therefore, quite at a loss to understand why the Government assumed such an attitude towards the Amendment before the Committee. Every concession in a Bill of this kind was a satisfaction to the Irish people; and the attitude of Irish Members was that the Bill was so oppressive and virulent that it was their duty to amend it, if possible. He had never spoken a word in that House in defence of crime and outrage; but he maintained that it was the duty of the House to take care that in hunting down criminals they did not injure innocent men. The Government contended, as a reason for introducing this Bill, that the criminal minority were "Boycotting" the innocent majority. He quite understood the Government giving the innocent majority power to "Boycott" criminals, and nothing of that kind would meet with any opposition from him; but he contended that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would have the effect of protecting innocent people, while it did not in any way interfere with the object of the Government.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had a strong objection to the clause, even though it was necessary, inasmuch as it might lead to the punishment of men who were innocent of any offence whatever. Still, he thought it right to say that the course taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was fairly adopted with the view of mitigating the clause. Her Majesty's Government were willing that every possible notice should be given, and that as early as possible, of the prohibition of a public meeting. But he hoped they would introduce a provision that no person attending a proclaimed meeting should be punished unless he knew when he attended it that the meeting had been proclaimed. It seemed to him only fair that words of this kind should be added, so that persons innocently attending the meeting should not be liable to the penalties of the Bill. He thought the Government were alive to the objections to the clause; and he hoped they would see their way to a further modification of it.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would suppose the case of the conveners of a prohibited meeting becoming acquainted
  1366
  with the circumstance that the object of the meeting was distasteful to the Lord Lieutenant, and changing it to the petitioning of Parliament against a certain grievance existing in the country. He asked whether the prohibition of the Lord Lieutenant would hold good both against the illegal and the legal purpose; and whether any guarantee would be introduced into the Bill as a means of preventing the magistrates punishing persons for the changed purpose, just as if the meeting were held on the prohibited ground?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was difficult to see what object the Government had in resisting this Amendment. The hon. Member for the City of Cork desired that public notice should be given in the locality of the unlawful character of the meeting prohibited. He was willing that 10 days' notice of the intention to hold the meeting should be given. On the other hand, he wanted only three days' notice of prohibition on the part of the Lord Lieutenant. The Government, under this arrangement, would have a week to consider their determination. There was direct communication by telegraph and post between Dublin Castle and every police station throughout the country. It would only take one day to give notice of prohibition, and on the third day it would be in every part of Ireland. Then, although the Police Force were most unfortunate in their endeavours to detect crime, they were known to be very efficient for the purpose of gathering up every scrap of information and submitting it to Dublin Castle, so that there would be no difficulty in the way of the notice of the intended meeting reaching the Lord Lieutenant. He was obliged to point out that the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was delusive, inasmuch as the promise that notice should be given at the earliest possible moment was of the vaguest possible character. The official mind in Ireland was fond of dramatic surprises, and of pouncing down suddenly on the people; and, as a rule, the less notice the people had the better the Executive would be pleased. It was against those dramatic surprises that the hon. Member for the City of Cork wished to guard the people. Again, although the police would be quick enough to communicate the prohibition of the meeting, there would not be the

  1367
  same alacrity to communicate that full and elaborate information, to Dublin Castle which, would enable a prompt decision to be arrived at; and the result would probably be that a proclamation would arrive on Saturday night or Sunday morning of a meeting to be held on the next day, in which case it would be impossible that the people in the district could be properly notified. He said that this system was neither honest nor fair; and he regarded it as an arrangement for entrapping the people. He was sorry to say, with regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), that it would not meet the case; because the two Resident Magistrates whom he proposed should be sent to announce the prohibition of the meeting would have nothing to distinguish them; they would present themselves suddenly in the midst of 5,000 or 10,000 people, who had, perhaps, travelled 10 or 20 miles to hear what was to be said at the meeting; and they would mumble out something which to those in the immediate vicinity of the platform might be understood as a prohibition of the meeting. But, further, in those parts of Ireland in which rack-renting most prevailed, and where evictions were most keenly felt, knowledge of the English language was by no means universal; and he assured the Committee that the bulk of the people might remain ignorant of the fact that the prohibition of the meeting had been announced by the magistrates; and the consequence would be that great amount of confusion would follow. There could be no more effective way of disturbing the public peace in Ireland than to bring together a large number of unlettered people from various districts, and when they had assembled with a set purpose to introduce two persons in mufti to put an end to the proceedings. If the clause were carried out in the spirit notified by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the gaols would become choked in six months, and the failure of the Act established.
  MR. METGEsaid, he could not understand what possible reason the Government had for not accepting this very reasonable Amendment, unless it was that they desired to mark the Act from beginning to end with the impress of vindictiveness. He could only understand their policy on the ground that
  1368
  they wished to sweep into the net of the law as large a number of persons as possible. Her Majesty's Government did not appear to understand the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend did not seek, in any way, to limit the power of the Government to prohibit meetings by notice given; all he said was, that in cases where people brought themselves within the letter of the law, by giving 10 days' previous notice of an intended meeting, they should be safeguarded by receiving three days' notice from the Government of the prohibition of the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said these meetings could be got up at very short notice; but, from his own experience, he could positively deny that that was the ease. It was a very difficult matter to get up a meeting of an extensive character in Ireland under a fortnight or three weeks. Meetings got up at short notice were, as a rule, complete failures; on the other hand, he had seen a meeting, of which there had been two months' notice, dispersed at one day's notice by the Government. As he had said, he could not see what object the Government had in not accepting this Amendment, unless it was to drive people into the meshes of the law, and sweep them within the powers of this Act; and he hoped the Chief Secretary would find some means of meeting the view now expressed.
  MR. T. FRYsaid, he thought the Amendment was of such importance that some Members on the Liberal side might ask the Government to meet the objections to the clause half way. The contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was that the Government should at least give three days' notice when they wished to proscribe a meeting; and some hon. Members thought that if three days' notice could not be given, no penalty should follow where the people could not have known that the meeting was proscribed. It would be unfair to subject people under these circumstances to six months' imprisonment.
  MR. GILLsaid, he believed that if the Government rejected this Amendment that course would have the worst effect of anything it had done since this unfortunate Bill came before the House. The people of Ireland would think that the release of the "suspects" now was

  1369
  all a sham, and was only intended to empty the prisons in order that the Government might put another set of people in their places as quickly as possible; and that, instead of imprisoning people who were suspected of crime, they wanted to imprison people who were absolutely free from any crime. If the Government wanted to carry out any kind of policy that would conciliate the people of Ireland, they might give way on some small thing such as this; and it was only to protect the people from wrongful imprisonment that he and his hon. Friends were enforcing this Amendment. The Government had full powers for stopping meetings without this clause; and the Irish Members wished to prevent this severe punishment being inflicted on innocent people, who had no knowledge that they were bringing themselves within the law.
  MR. SHEILsaid, it had often happened, as on this occasion, that when an Amendment was not printed, and was only read from the Chair, it was misunderstood; and in this case it appeared to him that not only did the Government misunderstand the Amendment, but even the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. T. Fry), who had spoken in favour of it, did not understand it. The object of the Amendment was, that should the promoters of any meeting- give 10 days' notice, then the Government should have seven days in which to consider whether to prohibit the meeting or not. What objection could there be to that? The Government would have seven days in which to consider the matter; they would know the object of the meeting; and all that was asked for was that they should not allow thousands of people to come from all parts of the country without their knowing that the meeting was proscribed. It seemed to him that the Amendment was so fair that it ought to be insisted on to the fullest extent, and he regretted that there was no more responsible Member of the Government in the House at that moment. He could not think that the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary would resist the Amendment, and he regretted that some more responsible Member of the Government had been prevented hearing the object of the Amendment. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have spoken upon it.] The Home Secretary was always opposed to Amendments; but he
  1370
  did not think the Prime Minister had appreciated this Amendment, and therefore he hoped there would be a strong opposition to the clause as it stood.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. POSTER)said, the Home Secretary had indicated the real desire of the Government to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite as far as possible; and he asked the Committee to observe in what respect the clause had already been modified. In the first place, the Home Secretary had agreed that the notice which the clause provided must be given at the earliest possible moment; in the second place, the notice was to be served on the promoters; and, in the third place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had agreed to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), that two magistrates should attend the meeting and give ample notice of its prohibition. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that no one could claim that the people attending a meeting were in ignorance; but, in order that there might be no mistake about that, and no penalty imposed upon persons who innocently attended a meeting, the Home Secretary had consented to accept an Amendment inserting the word "knowingly," which would prevent a penalty being imposed upon any person not present with an active knowledge. But there was a practical difficulty in the way of adopting this present Amendment, which, he thought, even the hon. Member who proposed it would see. Any limit of time was open to one great objection—the hon. Member himself had pointed out that the Lord Lieutenant might still prohibit the meeting and prevent persons attending it; but the object of this Amendment was that persons should not be liable to prosecution for attending a meeting. If a distinct limit of time, within which notice must be given, was laid down in the Bill, it would be open to this great danger—there would be two classes of prohibition, one to be acted upon at the time if necessary, which would remain untouched by the Bill; and, secondly, a restriction as to time. What would be the consequence of that? Persons who were not by any means ignorant would know that two or three days' notice would be necessary in order to bring a meeting under the Act, and they would inevitably think that

  1371
  such notice was requisite to make a meeting illegal; and if that notice was not given the prohibition of a meeting would, be certain to lead to a collision between the authorities and the people, because the people would think that, inasmuch as the preliminaries under the Act had not been complied with, they were in their right, and that the authorities were acting outside their right. It seemed to him that the requirements of the Bill should be as stringent as possible to meet the circumstances of particular cases, and it would be most dangerous to have two classes of prohibition; and, therefore, while it was desirable that the earliest possible notice should be given, and no one should be liable unjustly, yet it would be impossible to accept the Amendment as now suggested.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the danger pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman would not arise. The proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant would render a meeting illegal, no matter when it was issued, and the people could be legally dispersed; but persons attending a meeting without a notice of three days, or whatever period the Government agreed to, would not be liable to penalties for being present. That would be a difficulty; and ho thought, as the Government were now for the first time imposing this penalty upon people attending meetings without the right to appeal or of the protection of a jury, the distinction he had proposed was fair, and before the division was taken he wished the Committee to see exactly what it was he wanted. If the Government would agree to carry out the views of the Irish Members, he would withdraw his Amendment until the Report. What ho wanted was, that there should be notice given at some definite period before the holding of the meeting, in order to entitle the Crown to punish persons attending that meeting where notice had been given by the promoters at the police station nearest to the place where the meeting was to be held. He did not wish to take from the Government the power of proclaiming a meeting, but he did wish to take away the power of punishing persons who had not received the notice of prohibition.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had now brought the matter to a clear point, and had said
  1372
  that whether the meeting was to be prohibited within a fixed time or not, in either case the people would be acting illegally. That being quite clear, if a meeting was illegal, why should not any persons refusing to disperse, knowing the meeting to be illegal, be treated as acting illegally? At one meeting they would be liable to penalties for refusing to disperse; at another they would not; but in both eases the mooting was illegal. This seemed to him to be a difficulty in the case; and if the hon. Member should bear in mind one of the main reasons for desiring this penalty was that the Government believed the knowledge of this penalty would cause the people to disperse without force. That reason was equally applicable to both cases; and the Solicitor General for Ireland had pointed out, if at one class of meetings the people would not be liable to penalties, it would clearly be a greater inducement to refuse to disperse and to resist force. That seemed undesirable; and he would ask the hon. Member to consider this point. The only object now being contended about was founded on the supposition that the Government, having a knowledge of the circumstances which induced them to prohibit a meeting, would have some cause or other for withholding that knowledge deliberately from the people whom they ought to notify. Why should they do that? It was obvious that if the Government wanted to prevent a meeting they would take every possible means of preventing that meeting being held. It seemed to him a matter of common sense that they would take every precaution to let a prohibition be known. They were perfectly prepared to put in words where the notice was required at a point which had been passed and could not be dealt with now, declaring that it should be the duty of the Government to give notice at the earliest possible moment when the circumstances came to their knowledge. That seemed to him to meet the whole justice of the case. Then, when the meeting was held and the people were properly notified under the condition to be inserted in the Bill, and it came to the knowledge of the people that the meeting was prohibited, those persons deliberately refusing to disperse should be subject to the penalties of the Bill. That was a reasonable proposition; and he hoped the hon. Member would be willing, under the

  1373
  circumstances, not to press the Amendment, but to see whether, at some point hereafter, they could come to a satisfactory conclusion.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was misrepresenting the issue in a very extraordinary way. What the Irish Members wanted was, not that men were to be punished because they refused to disperse, but because they were present at a meeting. That was an exceedingly difficult matter. The essence of the clause was that attendance at a meeting was to be a crime, and not the refusal to disperse. If that was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted, he could have the Riot Act read, and call on the people to disperse, and then hold them liable if they refused.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) would meet exactly what was asked, because two magistrates would notify to the meeting that it had been prohibited; and if the people refused to disperse, after such notification, they would be liable to the penalties. That, he thought, met the objection of the hon. Member, for the people would receive an authoritative notice before being called upon to disperse.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Amendment he had desired to see introduced would act as a stimulant to the local authorities to inform the Lord Lieutenant in time, and not withhold the communication to the last moment when the people would be assembled and would have incurred the danger of penalties. It had been seen that the police and the local authorities had left the dispersing of a meeting to the last moment, and refrained from giving due notice to Dublin Castle, so that the people were put to the trouble of coming: long distances at the risk of coming into collision with the police and becoming liable to punishment.
  MR. DILLONwished to know what the Home Secretary assented to? He understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he would insert "knowingly;" but the Amendment which he was ready to insert left out all the words from "who" to "shall." Therefore, he did not see how the word "knowingly" was to be inserted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that "knowingly" would be put in at the top to govern the whole of the clause. What he meant was that "knowingly" should govern that clause, and with the Amendment he proposed to accept the clause would run thus—
  "In case such meeting be so prohibited, two or more justices of the peace shall attend at the place where they have reason to believe such meeting is to be held, and then and there notify and repeat aloud, to the persons attending, the order prohibiting such meeting, and direct such persons to disperse; and in case any of the persons so met or assembled together shall not disperse within the space of one half-hour, such persons shall thereupon be guilty of an offence against the Act."
  The word "knowingly" did not arise at this point, because the persons present would necessarily know, as the proclamation would be made in their presence.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he mentioned this matter because the Home Secretary said he intended to insert "knowingly" before the word "who," and he understood that that would preserve the mere presence at a meeting as an offence. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said presence was to be no offence, and only a refusal to disperse would be an offence. That altered the matter very much.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was willing to credit the Government with a desire to work out this clause as humanely and justly as possible. They had pledged themselves that the Lord Lieutenant should give notice of prohibition at the earliest possible moment after he received the information necessary for the formation of his opinion; but should not the Government, in their own interest and in the interests of good government, insert some provision in the clause which would make it incumbent on the local authorities to give the Lord Lieutenant that information at the earliest possible moment? That really was the point. The Irish Members were quite prepared to believe the Lord Lieutenant would give notice at the earliest possible moment from his point of view; but for the harmonious working of the clause, and to prevent ill-will, would not the Government insert some words making it incumbent on the local authorities and magistrates to inform the Lord Lieutenant at the earliest possible moment? That was of the greatest importance, because it might happen that the local police were on bad terms with

  1375
  the people, or there might be magistrates who had not sufficient knowledge of how to act in a difficult crisis; and so they might delay the notice to such a date that, although the Lord Lieutenant would give notice at the earliest possible moment from his point of view, his prohibition would be accompanied by a maximum of discomfort to the local population. If the Government would introduce words simply making it incumbent on the local police to give the earliest possible notice to the Lord Lieutenant, nine-tenths of the objections formulated in the Amendment would be fairly met.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, unquestionably there was considerable force in what had been said by some hon. Members opposite as to the possibility of the magistrates notification not being heard by some of those present. Probably it would meet those views to carry into effect what it was stated had been intimated by the Homo Secretary to the hon. Member for Tipperary, if the words suggested were added so as to make the sentence read—
  "And in case the people do not disperse in the space of one half-hour such persons thereupon who shall knowingly remain present at the said meeting and shall not have had previous notice that the meeting has been prohibited shall thereupon," &c.
  He did not see what objection there could be to this addition to the Amendment. Surely, they were now super-adding statutory rights to the rights enjoyed by the Lord Lieutenant; and it should not be the intention of the Government that a person, who was not aware that a meeting had been prohibited, and who had not had reasonable notice, either from the proclamation or the magistrates, or from previous information, should be made an offender against the provisions of the Act, and be subject to six months' imprisonment. He thought the words he suggested reasonable, and those adopted by the Government ought, and he conceived would, have the desirable effect of terminating this discussion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was a little disappointed to find that when he had accepted an Amendment the hon. and learned Member was not satisfied with his own Amendment. He was in as great a difficulty by accepting the Amendment as if he had
  1376
  refused to do so. It was certainly very discouraging, and he would like to point out the difficulty in which they were landed. If this power was to be used it must be in consequence of a magistrate making the declaration. When the Riot Act was read the consequences followed. Was it reasonable to suppose that it was necessary that every man in the crowd should hear the Act read. The people in the crowd perfectly well knew what the whole thing meant—it meant the declaration of the illegality of the meeting, and what it was necessary to prove was that the Riot Act had been read. It was exactly the same thing whether a man heard it read or not, and he did hope that the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that if Her Majesty's Government did not give notice of the prohibition of a meeting until the very last moment a great deal of expense would have been incurred—a great deal of popular feeling would have been excited, and all to no purpose. Without the slightest necessity the Government would have incurred a lot of unnecessary unpopularity. That was the logical position, and he thought it would be well if Her Majesty's Government would make it incumbent on the local magistracy and police not to cause any delay in their giving the information to the Lord Lieutenant as to meetings which were about to be held.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 176: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 142.)
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the next Amendment which stood in his name opened up a very important question with regard to the responsibility of those who promoted public meetings, and as the House had now been sitting for a very considerable time, he hoped that the Government would now consent to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, that early in the evening the Prime Minister announced the intention of the Government to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow; but the right hon. Gentleman was not at all

  1377
  sanguine that any very satisfactory result was likely to follow. Now, this Prevention of Crime Bill was either urgent, or it was unnecessary. The Government said that it was urgent. The Irish people—the terror-stricken people of Ireland—considered it was necessary. ["No, no!"] He maintained the terror-stricken people said it was necessary, and he and a vast majority of the Members of the House of Commons were of opinion that the measure was required. He, therefore, rose to make an appeal and a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. His appeal was that the Government should take immediate steps to bring the discussion on this Bill to a close. The sooner the Government recognized the fact the better it would be for the country, that the supporters and followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were almost irreconcilably opposed to this measure, and were using every means in their power to defeat it. He did not wish to say anything unkind of the hon. Gentlemen below the opposite Gangway. If they were irreconcilably opposed to this measure, they were, perhaps, justified in using the immense powers they possessed under the existing Rules of the House to resist its progress; but, on the other hand, public opinion in the country was at the back of Her Majesty's Government, and if hon. Members opposite chose to use the means they had at their disposal to obstruct the progress of the measure, the Government and the House of Commons generally were in duty bound to use the powers they possessed to secure the passing of the Bill. Under the existing Rules he knew it would be madness to attempt to vote Urgency. Morning Sittings were absolutely useless, for they had been taken over and over again, and the result had been nil. He, therefore, ventured to suggest to the Government that the only course open to them under the existing Rules was to have a continuous Sitting, and he believed that the adoption of such a course would meet with the approval of a large number of Members on the Ministerial side of the House. The Government were in a very large majority, and they must recognize that fact. He did not pretend to say that they must use their majority unfairly; but it must be remembered that the interests of the
  1378
  country—[An hon. MEMBER: Which country?]—the interests of England and Ireland demanded that this measure should be passed. There was no one more anxious than himself to see remedial measures passed for Ireland, and when the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill came before the Committee he should do all he could to assist its progress. He simply threw out this suggestion, and he hoped that the Government would not, at this early hour of the night (1.10), consent to report Progress.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he must deny that there was any ground for the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that he (Mr. Parnell) had in any way used the Forms of the House to oppose this Bill, or that he was in any way obstructing the progress of this Bill, or encouraging anybody else to do so. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that, after all, he was an Englishman or a Scotchman—lie was not quite sure which he was—and he could not be expected to sympathize as much with them and their exertions to preserve the Constitutional liberties of their country as they sympathized with themselves and their own people. He could, therefore, understand, to some extent, the impatience with which he had viewed the attempts of the Irish Members to alter the character of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that this Bill consisted of many clauses, a considerable number of which involved principles of the greatest importance and the most far-reaching consequences, taking away, one after the other, those Constitutional rights, which, up to last year, had been enjoyed in Ireland; and he (Mr. Parnell) would recommend the hon. Gentleman to hesitate before he desired to precipitate a conflict between the Irish people and the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government were sensible that the progress of this Bill had not been what the House of Commons had a right to expect. When a question of this kind was raised, he thought, a week ago, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), speaking of the length at which these debates had been continued, said that the Government must consider that they had practically got the main part of the Bill when they had got to the 4th clause, and the Committee hoped and expected that in the subsequent clauses the pro-

  1379
  gress of the Bill would have been more rapid. The hon. Gentleman said—"You have got the main part of your Bill, and you have only been a week or 10 days in discussing all these clauses." "That was not an unreasonable time," said the hon. Gentleman, "because you have got the main part of your Bill." Well, but almost as much time had been exponded upon the next three clauses; therefore, the expectation held out by the hon. Member for Wexford had not been at all fulfilled. Just let them observe what had taken place to-night. He could not help pointing out, with regard to the manner in which the Business of the House was conducted, that two hours were spent on what he must call an inordinate abuse of Questions. To-day, for the first time, there were upon the Paper of the House of Commons 68 Questions, a number, he believed, unparalleled before. Day after day, and Session after Session, the abuse grew; and, as he had said, two hours were spent upon Questions to-day, some of which, no doubt, were important, but many of which, he thought, the House might very well have dispensed with. Since Question time, seven hours and a-half had been taken up in the discussion of Amendments, which nobody could call of first-rate importance. They commenced the clause yesterday; they had spent the whole of to-day upon it, and they had not yet come to its conclusion. It was perfectly impossible, in his opinion, that the Business of the House, upon this or any other Bill, could be conducted upon such a footing as that. He had no desire whatever, if they could avoid it, to go to anything that could be called extreme measures; but what had occurred must have satisfied everybody that things could not go on in the future as they had gone on in the past. He would rather reserve the consideration of future proceedings to the Prime Minister; and he hoped that, at all events, the Committee would show its desire to deal practically with a matter of this kind by finishing the discussion of this clause to-night.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had personally alluded to him. What he had said on a former occasion he would now repeat. He pointed out on Friday night last, in reply to something that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1380
  Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that the Government had got four clauses of the Bill in a little more than a week, whereas the Tory Party had taken up five nights upon the three first lines of the Land Bill of last year. As this Bill was of great importance to the population of Ireland, of much greater importance than the miserable Free Sale Clause of the Land Act, he considered the conduct of the Irish Members had been far more pardonable than the action of the Tory Party last year. He pointed out last week that the Government had got the main clauses of the Bill. He added nothing to that except that he hoped the Government would not accept the advice given them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The Government had now reached the 7th clause; in fact, they had proceeded two or three times as rapidly in the last two or three days as they did in the 10 previous days. Ho considered that the contention he put forward on Friday night last had been maintained to the letter. He made no complaint of the speech of the Home Secretary; but he did not think, after all, that the right hon. Gentleman ought to blame the Irish Members for what had occurred earlier in the evening. Everyone know that a considerable portion of the Question time was occupied in an animated dialogue between the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron De Worms); in fact, he thought that the House never presented an appearance so much like a Punch and Judy show before, for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was continually jumping up and down badgering the unfortunate Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In the whole course of their acquaintance with the late Chief Secretary there was never anything so much in the shape of baiting as had happened this afternoon in the case of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. With reference to the proposal to finish this clause to-night, he thought that if the Government would not take a Morning Sitting to-day the clause might very fairly be finished; but if the Government wanted to bring them down at 2 o'clock, he hoped his hon. Friend would insist upon reporting Progress. The Home Secretary must know that whenever concessions had been given during this Bill progress had been very largely

  1381
  accelerated. Nothing had astonished the House more than the manner in which they got through the 5th clause. It went through with a run. A substantial concession was made to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and through went the clause. Hon. Gentlemen of the Irish Party, during the progress of the Bill, had received support to their Amendments from hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. The Irish Members had been encouraged to go on with their Amendments by the Radical Members of the House; and the inference they were to draw from that was that their arguments had produced a substantial impression on the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it could not be maintained that they were arguing now in vain. It was a source of considerable satisfaction to them to find that, instead now of having minorities of 20 or 30, which were the minorities when they started the discussion of this Bill, those minorities had doubled, and now the supporters of Amendments were dividing 50 or 60 strong. He would suggest that the Government should make a statement that they would abandon the Morning Sitting and go on with the Bill now until they came to some point upon which there was a very material difference of opinion. It was proposed that they should meet at 2 o'clock. When they met, Questions would occupy the time until half-past 2, and that would only give them four hours and a-half; and then, when they met again at 7 o'clock, or at 10 minutes past—for the Speaker did not come in until one of the Whips informed him that 40 Members were present—["No, no!"] The noble Lord opposite, one of the Government Whips, shook his head; but hon. Members knew very well how this was done. On the grounds he had stated, and also on the ground of the inconvenience to which Members might be put, he would recommend the Government to drop the Morning Sitting, and see how they went on with the Bill to-night.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he only rose for the purpose of suggesting that as it seemed to be understood that it would be possible, without sitting very late, to finish the 7th clause—which would be a very reasonable thing for the Committee to con-
  1382
  template—they had better try to avoid too much talking. If they went on with this discussion, they would only be losing time, which could be advantageously employed in considering the Amendments to the clause. They had been discussing the clause all the evening, and their minds were now properly set to it, and if they went on quietly and perseveringly, he did not think it need take them long to pass it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated that he would suggest to his Friends the desirability of going on with the 7th clause, and concluding its consideration to-night, if the Motion for a Morning Sitting to-day was withdrawn. He (Mr. Labouchere) would point out two things—first, that, as the hon. Member for Wexford had said, there had been more Liberals with the Movers of Amendments opposite on this clause than on any other Amendments to the Bill; and, in the next place, this clause was in itself a Bill. It would have the effect of putting a stop to public meetings, and he would put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary himself, how long would it be likely to take to pass a clause or a Bill doing away with the right of public meeting for three years in England?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that with reference to the suggestion that the arrangement as to a Morning Sitting should be altered, he did not think that, under the circumstances, that could be done, for the reason that when an announcement was made by the Prime Minister early in the evening, people went away with the impression that that announcement would be adhered to. It would not be fair to alter the arrangement at this time of the evening. Hon. Members would see the difficulty the Government were involved in, in having made a promise of this description. Hon. Members opposite had the support of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and, no doubt, as the hon. Member for Wexford had said, that support was a very potent and valuable element in their resistance to this Bill. He thought, at all events, they ought to see what the opinion of the House was as to whether or not they should insist upon going on with the clause before a new arrangement was entered into. He must resist the Motion.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry the Home Secretary had not been able to see his way to accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford to go on for two or three hours tonight, and finish the clause, so as not to be under the necessity of coming down to a Morning Sitting.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would consent to forego a Morning Sitting if I could; but it is impossible.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry for that, because he thought if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been able to accede to the Motion, it would have contributed very much to the harmony and despatch of Public Business. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Committee would see that as they would be obliged to meet there again in 12 hours' time, it would not be reasonable for the Government to require them to stop here another two hours till they finished the clause. If they finished the clause, after deducting the time which would be spent in getting home and getting back again, they would only be left with something like 10 hours for sleep and transacting any private business they might have to perform. Then, again, it must not be forgotten that the number of hon. Members who were opposing this Bill, and endeavouring to amend it in the interests of a whole people, was very limited. Though they would have been willing to have given two hours to the further consideration of the clause to-night, if the arrangement had been for them to meet at 4 o'clock to-morrow, he did not think that, under the circumstances, they should be asked to give any further time to the Bill at present. It was not reasonable to ask them to go on any longer; therefore, he trusted the Government would give way.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had drawn attention to a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Wexford, to the effect that when they had obtained the 4th clause of the Bill they really had secured the most important part of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman from this had drawn the conclusion that as they had got the most important part of the Bill through, the rest should be allowed to pass as quickly as possible. To him
  1384
  (Mr. O'Donnell) it appeared the legitimate conclusion was that as the Government had got the "Boycotting" Clause and the clause for the suspension of trial by jury, they might have seen, their way to offering less resistance than they seem inclined to do to reasonable Amendments to the remaining portion of the Bill. [Cries of "Divide!"] The clamour arising from the Liberal Benches opposite was a conclusive proof of the incapacity of the Committee to continue the consideration of the Bill in a calm frame of mind to-night.
  MR. MONKsaid, there was a very general opinion amongst many of his Friends sitting on that—the Ministerial —side of the House, that it was desirable that Progress should be reported. If the Home Secretary hoped to get through this clause to-night, there could be no doubt that he was under a mistake. Considering the lateness of the hour, and that they were to meet again at 2 o'clock, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to agree that Progress should be reported.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that, as one who had a strong feeling that the Government of the country ought to be supported in the measures they thought necessary for the purpose of preserving law and order in Ireland, he had always kept clear of anything like interfering with the Government in the conduct of their Bill. But he thought the time had come when an independent Member might be excused for saying that, so far as his feeling and that of others sitting near him was concerned, the opinion was gaining ground, both in the House and out of it, that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to take such steps as they might deem desirable to expedite and enforce the carrying out of the policy which they had thought it their duty to recommend. He was not bringing accusations against hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had felt it to be their duty, in the interests of the country from which they came, to oppose the Bill, line by line, and word by word; but the Committee must look at this matter as practical men. They must be aware that, under such difficulties as the House was placed in at present, it was quite impossible for Parliament to pass a perfect measure. If it was to be subjected to verbal criticism, it would be impossible to make it what was called a

  1385
  perfect measure, or, if they did, they would not have time to pass it this Session. They must proceed, to a certain extent, by rough-and-ready means. [Ironical cheers by the Irish Members.] Yes, rough-and-ready means; but, of course, he meant in crucial circumstances. Rough-and-ready means were sometimes necessary, and it was time for Her Majesty's Government to consider what measures they could take to bring this legislation to a termination. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, leading as it did to the eviction of somewhere about 20 families a-week, was likely to produce a strong feeling in the country that it was far from being patriotic. He would also venture to suggest that a feeling was growing throughout the country that the time had come when the Government must put their foot down and take some steps to secure the practical realization of that policy which they had taken upon themselves the responsibility of recommending to Parliament.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should not have risen to keep the Committee from the division they were anxious for, had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member charged hon. Gentlemen from Ireland with a policy the tendency of which was to increase evictions in Ireland; but it was not the Irish Party, but the Government, who were responsible for what was taking place in Ireland. They were following the precedent of last year by making their policy of conciliation follow that of coercion. This Bill was a Bill for increasing evictions in Ireland. It was a Bill for taking away from the Irish people that power of combination which, when the Government had deserted them, had been for the last two years the only means they possessed for stopping evictions. This was a Bill for putting the Irish tenants at the mercy of the Irish landlords; and yet, in full view of this fact, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. E. Smith), after his long experience, had the face to get up and accuse the Irish Members of increasing the number of evictions in Ireland. The Government, from their own point of view, had already obtained as much of the Bill as was necessary to enable them to preserve peace and order in Ireland. Then let them drop the rest of it. They had made themselves pos-
  1386
  sessed of far too much power. They had taken means for putting down "Boycotting," and when this clause had passed they would have taken means for putting down public meetings. They had possessed themselves of power to bring murderers before what they conceived to be an impartial tribunal. On the heads of the Government rested responsibility for all the evictions that were taking place by the delay they had allowed to take place in the passing of the Arrears Bill. It was monstrous that hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. E. Smith) should try in this matter to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the feeling was increasing from day to day that the Arrears Bill should be brought forward, and that these sentences of death, which, in the form of evictions, were being passed upon the people from day to day, should be put an end to. The Government should give precedence to the Arrears Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith), who had something of an Irish constituency, and others, had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity for which, with malice prepense, he had been waiting, when, some time ago, he said there was some force in the suggestion that they should have Urgency for this Bill. It was quite evident to anyone who knew the right hon. and learned Gentleman's antecedents that he would only be too glad of any excuse which would enable him to avail himself of that continuous Sitting to hurry the Bill through, for which he had all along been so very anxious.
  MR. METGEsaid, they were not averse to proceeding with the discussion on this Bill if they were allowed to do so without being obliged to come down here to-day to a Morning Sitting. The answer the Home Secretary had given was that it was now too late to alter the decision of the Prime Minister; but that was the answer the Home Secretary invariably gave the House. This was the third or fourth time that a similar reply had been tendered. Why did he not think of it beforehand? The Government, no doubt, had intended to discuss this Bill until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. If they had made up their minds to do that, why had the Prime Minister brought for-

  1387
  ward his Motion; and if, on the other hand, they had not made up their minds to do that, why should they not now give way? If this sort of thing went on, hon. Members would have coercion on the brain.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to take a division? It will only load to further loss of time.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to know what the feeling of the Committee is upon this question.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 142: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 137: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 144.)
  MR. DILLONmoved that Progress be reported. He was surprised at the action the Government were taking. He had understood the Home Secretary to say that he desired to obtain the opinion of the Committee, and not that he intended to continue to divide. Therefore, he supposed that when the next Motion was made the Government would acquiesce, as a matter of course, and that the Home Secretary was only making a demonstration of force against the Irish Members. They were taken by surprise by the second division; but he hoped the Government would now consent to report Progress, seeing that the appeal came not alone from the Irish Members, but also from influential supporters of the Government, who emphasized their appeal by leaving the House when the Home Secretary desired to take the opinion of the Committee. He saw several leave the House because they would not vote for the Government, and would not vote against the Government. It was thus plain that there existed outside the Irish Party a feeling that the right time had now come for reporting Progress; and, therefore, it was absurd to place the Irish Members in this position at 2 o'clock in the morning—that they were to be looked upon as Obstructionists. They were asking the Government to consent to report Progress—an hour later than usual—because they
  1388
  were threatened with a Morning Sitting. They objected to a Morning Sitting, and had stated that if there was to be no Morning Sitting they would go on till 3 o'clock; but in spite of their objections a Morning Sitting was fixed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was quite true that he desired to ascertain the opinion of the Committee, and that opinion he had ascertained. Ho did not think the divisions that had taken place justified the boasts made as to the amount of support received from Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, for he believed that when the Division Lists came to be examined the}' would not show that the recruits from these Benches were numerous. The position in which the Committee was now placed illustrated what had long been the opinion of the Government—that a majority in the House was impotent in the face of a small minority. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) asked why he did not assent to the last Motion? The last Motion was one which would have defeated the Bill; therefore, it was natural that he should not assent to it. But he did not think to-night was the proper time to determine what course should be taken to facilitate the progress of Public Business. That question must be reserved for future consideration.
  MR. E. POWERsaid, he was glad to see that the Home Secretary had displayed an unusual amount of common sense; and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his great majority, he would ask him to remember that in the first division 25 Irish Members voted for the adjournment, and only 10 against it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he considered these divisions no test whatever of the sense of the Committee. There were Members on the Government side of the House in favour of an adjournment who yet voted for a continuance of the debate. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) strongly urged the Government to consent to the Motion, yet he supported the Government in the division. What, therefore, was the value of this division while it

  1389
  was perfectly well known that men voted in that House, not because they objected to the Motion, but because they must support the Government? But it should be remembered that the Irish Members had the heaviest part of the work to do upon this Bill, and that the matter concerned them the most closely. They had to be in the House more than any other section of the House, and as they had to be back again at 2 o'clock, they had a right to ask the House to consider their physical requirements.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that as the Government were about to consider what steps they would take in the present position, he wished to make a practical suggestion, which was, that as murderers were stalking about the laud, and evictions had not been suspended, they should let the Executive in Ireland act as if this Bill had been passed, and bring in a Bill of Indemnity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 176.]
(Mr. Courtney, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 176.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. COURTNEY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he regretted having to make this Motion at such an advanced hour; but it appeared that the Motion must be made late, or at a later period of the Session, when it might be more inconvenient. He was encouraged to move the second reading because there was, practically, nothing new in the scope of the Bill. It was conceived on the lines of previous Bills, and contained no principle different from that in its predecessors. There were, no doubt, new loans sanctioned; but they had been already authorized by Parliament. A great part of those loans was necessary to carry out schemes which had been approved in the main this Session. The total sum contained in the Bill was £1,500,000, made up of loans for the Metropolitan District (City Lines) Railway, the management of Asylums, School Board management, and other undertakings. When the Bill was before the House last Session, in the last week in July, the question was raised of
  1390
  referring it to a Select Committee. His Predecessor (Lord Frederick Cavendish) expressed the opinion that the matter was one which might be favourably considered by a Select Committee, and promised this year to introduce the Bill at such a period that it could be referred to a Select Committee. The House could now consider whether that course should be adopted; and the next stage of the Bill he (Mr. Courtney) proposed to defer till Monday next, so that the question could be considered. During the interval he should be happy to confer upon the most convenient course with hon. Members. At the present moment, however, it seemed to him that it would be impossible to refer the whole subject to a Committee, because that would be nothing less than referring the whole of the financial action of the Metropolitan Board to a Committee, and such a reference would overtax any Committee that could be appointed. A Committee this Session could only consider a small part of the functions of the Metropolitan Board. This question, however, could not be very well considered at that hour of the night; but he should be happy to confer privately with hon. Members, and if they could come to any agreement hereafter, they could probably devise plans for working out what was a large and complicated question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was not about to raise again a question which Mr. Speaker decided last year; but it seemed to him an abuse of the Standing Orders that a Bill which was really promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works should be held technically to be promoted by the Government. He should not enter into that question; but it was a hardship upon other parties that the Board of Works should come in under the shelter of the Government and avail themselves of this technicality, against which he had protested last year. This Bill was nothing more than the annual budget of the Board of Works; and he wished to take the opinion of Mr. Speaker on the question whether the Board had a right, in this Money Bill, to introduce the 10th clause, which had nothing to do with money.
  MR. COURTNEY,on the point of Order, observed that this clause was included in last year's Bill, and sanctioned by Parliament and the highest authorities.
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to mo the clause in question is, in fact, part of the financial arrangements of the Bill, and I see no reason why the House should not agree to it, if the House thinks proper to do so.
  MR. MONKsaid, ho thought it was much to be regretted that the Bill had been brought on at so late an hour, though the Secretary to the Treasury had made the best excuse he could for adopting that course. It was a Bill of great importance, for it was to enable the Board of Works to raise, by taxing the Metropolis, an additional sum of £3,217,000; but he would not examine into that now. He rose to say that last year he moved that a similar Bill to this should be referred to a Select Committee; and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was not quite correct in his statement of what took place. He (Mr. Monk) withdrew his Motion, on the distinct understanding that the Bill this year should be referred to a Select Committee. The late Secretary to the Treasury said—
  "He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion to a division, although lie was very much inclined to agree with the object of it. It seemed very desirable that this Bill should he considered by a Select Committee."
  And he went on to say—
  "He hoped the Bill would ho introduced next year at such a period that it might ho referred to a Select Committee."—[3 Hansard, cclxiii. 1726.]
  Then the hon. Member for Chelsea expressed a hope that he (Mr. Monk) would withdraw his Amendment, on the distinct undertaking to refer the Bill to a Select Committee the next year, and on that distinct understanding he (Mr. Monk) then withdrew his Motion. Avail, be really did not understand from the Secretary to the Treasury what were the objections to taking that course. He felt indebted to him for having brought in the Bill at a much earlier period than usual this Session, when there was plenty of lime to have it so considered; and he thought that the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would agree with him that it was not right that the Board of Works,
  1392
  which came for powers for raising a sum of £28,000,000 in the shape of taxes on the ratepayers of the Metropolis, should refuse to submit to Parliamentary control the raising and expenditure of such money. He would only say that ho intended that evening to put clown a Notice for a Select Committee, as well as an Amendment for the omission of Clause 10, to which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had taken objection. He also objected to Clause 8, which gave power to the Treasury to authorize a further expenditure of £300,000 without the consent of Parliament. If such a power was to be granted, he should object to the passing of the Bill without the examination of a Select Committee.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he did not think the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) quite represented the facts of the case. Ho must be aware that these Bills year by year simply embodied the powers that had been given by Parliament, over and over again in recent years, for the expenditure of money. If, as he gathered, his hon. Friend did not intend, on the present occasion, to divide against the second reading, but intended to take the view of the House as to a Select Committee, he would not at that hour discuss the Bill, beyond saying that it was a Bill which had been over and over again confirmed by Parliament; and there was not a single power in it that had not previously received Parliamentary sanction. He would point out to the House that the Board of Works were now in the midst of great and important contracts, and arrangements for improvements in streets, in drainage, and other matters, which would be hindered and delayed if they were to be submitted over and over again to a Committee of the House. Then the hon. Member talked of the increased powers given to the Treasury; but the hon. Member was paying no attention—
  MR. MONKsaid, he had heard all the hon. Baronet's observations.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, the reason for asking these powers from the Treasury was this. The Board of Works, in their Bill, had confined their demands to the smallest limits; but if, in the course of their street improvements, bridges, and other matters, they should find it necessary to go beyond the

  1393
  powers given them, it was left to the Treasury to consent, should it think proper, and allow the Board to expend a small sum beyond that asked for by the Board.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, it was well under-stood last year, when his hon. Friend withdrew his Motion for a Select Committee, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee this year. It was a matter upon which not much was said by himself; but it was entered into, and he did ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion on the understanding referred to. That was the best course to pursue before the House voted these large sums of money, which the people of London would provide, and in the disposal of which they had no voice. There was a sum of £100,000 for the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and he supposed if the people of London were consulted nine-tenths of them would vote against such a proposition. It was an extraordinary proposal that all this money should be voted without anyone knowing the reasons for it; but if the suggestion for a Select Committee were accepted, then that was a course that would result in the proposals becoming more public, and to the expression of representative views upon them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 26th June.

MOTIONS.

  SURREY TRIAL OF CAUSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WARTON, Bill to provide for the Trial of Causes in the county of Surrey, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WARTON and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.]

  REAL AND PERSONAL ESTATE (ACCUMULATION OF INCOME) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DAVEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the accumulation of the income of real and personal estate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DAVEY, Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 205.]

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Acts 12 and 13 Vic. c. 92, and 13 and 14 Vic. c. 92, for prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. PASSMORE EDWARDS, and Mr. BUCHANAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill for the better protection of Ancient Monuments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. COURTNEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 207.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.