Commons Sitting of 16 June 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)— Considered as amended —London Street Tramways Extensions*.
Third Reading—London and South Western Railway. *, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading —Imprisonment for Contumacy* [208].
Committee —Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157] —R.P. [Thirteenth Night.]
Report —Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5)* [175].
Considered as amended —Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) * [186].

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION ACT—CALF LYMPH.
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Local Government Board, What has been done in fulfilment of his promise to provide a public supply of calf lymph for the vaccination of those who preferred it; if he would state at what date the Government calf lymph establishment was opened; how many points and tubes of preserved lymph have been distributed from it; what arrangements have been made for its distribution to public vaccinators and medical practitioners; what arrangements, if any, have been made for calf-to-arm vaccination at a public station or stations; and, how many children have been vaccinated by public vaccinators direct from calf to arm?
  MR. DODSON: A permanent vaccine station has been established at Lamb's Conduit Street, under the management of Dr. Cory, providing regular calf-to-arm vaccination, and giving opportunity for the vaccination of children direct from the calf twice a-week. In the first instance great difficulties were experienced in obtaining suitable premises; but temporary accommodation was obtained at Notting Hill, and lymph began to be distributed last summer from calves vaccinated there. Since July last lymph has been obtained to the amount of 2,106 points and 78 tubes, of which 1,672 points and 51 tubes have been distributed. It is supplied to public vaccinators, and to other registered medical practitioners on application, free of charge. Since the Lamb's Conduit Street station was opened in March, 37 children have been vaccinated there direct from the calf.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)-THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a notice in Gaelic and English, dated Chamberlain's Office, Stornoway, March 8th, and circulated among the crofters of the Island of Lewis, to the effect
  "That children who do not regularly attend school and make up the requisite number of attendances, and be present at the examination of the school, put the ratepayers and the School

  1403
  Board of the parish to the loss of the Government grant;"
  and that therefore
  "Children once entered on the admission register of the school, who fail to make up the requisite number of attendances, or who are not present at the examination of the school this year, their parents will have to pay with their first rent the sum of 18s. for each child who may thus fail in attendance;"
  and, whether the same gentleman who is Chamberlain of Lewis is also Chairman of all the School Boards in the island; and, if so, whether the Education Department will take any steps in the matter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen the notice to which the hon. Member refers, and as it is a question between landlord and tenant, and not between the Department and the school board, I have no right to interfere. I understand that the Chamberlain has been re-elected Chairman of the four school hoards since the issue of this notice, and that his sole object in issuing it was to insure regularity of attendance, and to prevent loss to the ratepayers through absence of children on the day of inspection. I understand that any fines inflicted will he paid into the school fund; but I hope the local authorities (who have been very remiss hitherto) will so discharge their functions as to render such fines unnecessary.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case in which James M'Govern, Thomas M'Govern, and Owen Maguire, who were arrested on the 7th instant, and charged with being
  "Accessory to a crime punishable by law, that is to say, shooting at and wounding a certain person with intent to murder him,"
  is the one in which an attack was made on one William Trimble, on the 31st ultimo; and, whether he is aware that the prisoners declare they are able to prove their entire innocence of the crime, and if he will give the prisoners an opportunity of proving their innocence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The grounds stated for the arrest of these men in the warrants under which they are detained
  1404
  will be laid before the House in due course, as provided by the Act, and I cannot give the hon. Member the supplemental information he asks for. I have received a letter from James M'Govern, making the allegation contained in the last paragraph of the Question, and have forwarded it to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the cases of all suspects from the county Clare have now been reconsidered; and, if so, how many of those suspects His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has decided to retain for the present in custody?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In reply to this Question, the Lord Lieutenant authorizes me to say that he has been, and still is, considering the cases of all the prisoners arrested in the County Clare, and in any case in which he considers he can do so with safety to the peace of the district he orders the prisoner's release.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received testimonials from gentlemen of position in the county, as to the high character borne by Mr. Daniel O'Loughlin, of Lisdoonvarna, late master of the Bally vaughan (county Clare) Workhouse, who, together with Mr. Denis Hogan, of Bally vaughan, was on the 17th ultimo sent to Galway gaol for six months by Mr. Wilfred Lloyd, E.M. under a Statute of Edw. III.; and, whether those prisoners may hope for release or for a mitigation of their punishment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received through the hon. Member testimonials as to the character of Mr. O'Loughlin. In his case, and that of Mr. Denis Hogan, there were appeals to the Queen's Bench, which were dismissed and the committals upheld, and His Excellency has not considered the cases with a view to any mitigation of the sentences.
  MR.O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the present peaceful state of the neighbourhood, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant will withdraw the warrant, if any, against Mr. J. Malone, of Tomgraney, county Clare?
  MR. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member refers to a warrant under the Protection Act, I can promise him that

  1405
  such warrant will not be executed if Mr. Malone does not commit any further act calling for its execution. Mr. Malone is at present in custody on remand under the ordinary law, charged with writing a threatening letter.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the high testimony to character, and the recommendations (including that of his employer, Captain O'Callaghan, a magistrate and deputy lieutenant of the county), in the case of Mr. Whelan, of Ballinahinch, County Clare, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant finds himself in a position to order Mr. Whelan's release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency yesterday considered all the facts of this case, and decided that he could not at present order Mr. Whelan's release.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has considered the strong recommendations in favour of Mr. T. M'Kenna, of Ogonelloe, which have been submitted at various times; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant is in a position to comply with them, and to order his release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has this day ordered Thomas M'Kenna's release.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for the continued detention of Mr. John Ladrigan in Kilkenny Gaol, who was arrested at Rock-chapel, county Cork, on the 17th February; and if it is not the fact that his district is quite peaceable; and, if John M'Namara, of Tulla, county Clare, is still confined in Kilmainham Gaol, and if the Lord Lieutenant has re-considered his case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of Mr. John Ladrigan is now under the Lord Lieutenant's consideration. John M'Namara was released on the 8th instant.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— ADJUTANTS.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Adjutants of the Auxiliary Forces, who do not draw an allowance in kind from any mess, may be exempted from the reduction of commuted allowances for fuel and light, and receive that granted to
  1406
  Staff and Departmental officers; whether the mess allowance, at the rates granted to individual officers of the Royal Engineers away from their mess, on duty, may be extended to Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces; why Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces receive smaller commuted allowances than Departmental officers of the same relative rank, being similarly situated to them as regards deprivation of mess, quarters, servant, fuel, and light; and, why Adjutants of Volunteer Artillery, who draw no extra pay, and draw only the same forage allowance as Adjutants of Engineer and Rifle Volunteers, are called upon to provide themselves with horse appointments of Cavalry pattern, which are much more costly than Infantry pattern, while ail other Artillery Captains and Subalterns who have to use horse appointments (without extra pay) are provided therewith from the public stores?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the emoluments of the Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces have been increased lately, after full consideration; and I am not prepared to change the particular allowances enumerated in the Question on the mere ground that Staff or Engineer officers draw higher rates. Adjutants of Volunteer Artillery have to provide themselves with horse appointments of Artillery, not Cavalry, pattern. They are not supplied from public stores, because the Adjutants are appointed for five years. Officers of Artillery, who are so supplied, are liable, at short notice, to go to dismounted duty.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—INTIMIDATION AT MILTOWN MALBAY.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received information that, notwithstanding a well known feud in the neighbourhood, and recent evictions of leaseholders, all intimidation has been abolished at Miltown Malbay, county Clare; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant can, therefore, see his way to the release of the suspects from that place who are confined on suspicion of connivance in intimidation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency is glad to learn that the state of affairs at Miltown Malbay has much improved,

  1407
  and he has been able favourably to consider the eases of several prisoners from that locality, and is still considering others. There are a few, however, whose discharge he cannot consistently with his duty at present order.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) —KILDYSART UNION — ELECTION"OP CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board has received a second protest from the majority of the Kildy sart (county Clare) Board of Guardians as to the unusual punctuality of the meeting at which a minority consisting, according to one version, of three, and according to another of two, guardians, recently elected a chairman of the board; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board has considered the protest worthy of notice?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board did receive protests from certain of the Guardians of the Kildysart Union in reference to the subject of this Question, and, having considered the matter, sent their reply to the clerk of the Union on the 15th of April.

  THE FACTORY ACTS—LEAD POISONING.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to instruct the Inspectors of Factories and Workshops to attend coroners' inquests held on persons who lose their lives from lead poisoning, in the same way as the Inspectors of Mines watch inquests into deaths from accidents in mines; also, if the inquiry into the question of lead poisoning, promised some time ago, has yet been completed; whether he can state the result of the investigation; and, if he will lay any Papers relating to the subject upon the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the Factory Inspectors did attend inquests on persons killed in factories, when they received sufficient notice. He thought it would be well to issue a Circular to Coroners, asking them on every such occasion to communicate with the Factory Inspector, There
  1408
  would be no objection to the production of the Papers mentioned in the Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED RIOTS BY SOLDIERS IN BELTURBET.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to riots by soldiers in Belturbet on the 3rd instant, in which they, to the number of about thirty, armed with stable forks, fireirons, &c, attacked and dangerously wounded several peaceable citizens; how did these men get out of barracks; what steps, if any, were taken by the officer in charge to quell the riot; whether an inquiry into the whole case has been made by the military authorities; and, if so, what punishment was awarded; whether the Constabulary authorities considered the affair of such consequence as to demand the presence of additional police force in the town on the following day, with the view of protecting the inhabitants, as the soldiers in question once before threatened to wreck the town; whether on Sunday the 4th, the magistrates who had taken the depositions of one of the injured men refused to deliver up to the custody of the Constabulary the soldiers sworn to have been participators of the riots; and, whether the police entered their protest against the conduct of the magistrates in thus departing from the usual custom in cases of aggravated assault?
  MR. CHILLERS: As the Question refers to the conduct of the military, I will answer it. The reports of the disturbance at Belturbet are so conflicting that a special Report has been called for as to the whole facts of the case. As cross-summonses in the matter appear to have been issued, it would not be at present for the public interest to give any further information as to the action of the military and civil authorities.

  NAVY—INSPECTOR OF MACHINERY IN THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the appointment of Inspector of Machinery in the Channel Squadron has been done away with, and by whose advice?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has been no reduction in the establishment of Inspectors of Machinery.

  1409
  The officer who held that position in the Channel Squadron has been transferred to Bermuda, taking the place of the chief engineer at that station, whose time had expired; the reason being that it had been found from experience that there is more need for the services of an officer of that rank at Bermuda than in the Channel Squadron.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS) — THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. ONSLOW, in whose name the following Questions stood on the Paper —namely, To 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 emeute at Alexandria, were buried at sea; and why it was that they were not buried at Alexandria; whether Her Majesty's Government has warned English subjects at Cairo that their safety is dependent on Arabi Bey; and, what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government for receiving on board any ships the large number of European refugees now endeavouring to leave Egypt; "said, that before he put his Questions he rose to a point of Order. He gave Notice yesterday of three Questions, the manuscript of which he now held in his hand. The second Question, as he gave Notice of it, was in these words:—Whether Her Majesty's Government has warned English subjects in Cairo that, considering that their safety is dependent upon Arabi Pasha, the safest course for them would be to leave Egypt? The point of Order he wished to raise was whether, having given Notice of that Question, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not having challenged its form, and the Speaker not having told him that it was not in Order, it was competent for the Clerk at the Table, without the cognizance of the Member giving such Notice, to alter the language of the Question. He made this inquiry, because he found that his Question, as it now appeared on the Paper, had been materially altered.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite impossible for the Speaker to say at once when Notice is given of a Question that every phrase of that Notice is in Order. The Questions of the hon. Member were brought to the Table, and were sub-
  1410
  jected to revision in accordance with the Rules of the House; and no doubt an expression was struck out of the Question on the ground that it was an expression involving matter of controversy. I have no hesitation in saying that, if an opportunity had been afforded to the Clerk at the Table to communicate with the hon. Member, he would have done so. It is the practice of the Clerk at the Table, whenever an alteration is made in a Question by my authority, to communicate the grounds of the alteration to the hon. Member who had given the Notice.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether, when the Clerk at the Table found that a Question was not, as he thought, within the Rules of Order, it would not be more consistent with the practice and the dignity of the House that the Question should be altogether omitted from the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: I scarcely think that this Question is one of Order; but it strikes me that if that course were taken it would produce much more dissatisfaction than the present practice.
  MR. HEALY: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when there is so much divergence of opinion among hon. Members on this subject, you will inform them where the Rules of the House as to the putting of Questions are to be found?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, of course, he bowed to the Speaker's ruling; but he might observe that he had not put the Question down as a matter of controversy at all. He now put the Question as it stood on the Paper.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With reference to the burials at sea, the Foreign Office have heard of the fact from the Admiralty, to which Department I must refer the hon. Member for a reply to that portion of his Question. Sufficient vessels are chartered, and at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, to provide for the removal of all British subjects who wish to leave.
  MR. ONSLOW: Are the boats of the Fleet employed, or to be employed, in carrying away European refugees?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say. That is a matter which is left to the discretion of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. Transports have been engaged

  1411
  for the purpose of conveying from Alexandria any British subjects who may desire to leave. The last vessel engaged will arrive there to-day, and the transports will afford accommodation for 4,500 persons. We have received a telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, saying that the accommodation thus provided is, in his opinion, sufficient for what is required.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Where are the refugees to be conveyed to? To Malta, or Cyprus, or where?
  MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN: That I do not know, and cannot say. It depends on the nationality, or rather the origin, of the refugees, and that matter also is in the hands of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. [Sir DRUMMOND WOLFF: Hear, hear!] Well, I do not how it would he possible for the Admiralty to know where the British subjects in Alexandria wished to be taken. It is our duty to provide transports where they are required, and that has been done to an extent, I believe, somewhat in excess of the actual requirements of the case. As to the Question of the burial of those who, unfortunately, were killed, that is a matter of which we have merely learned the fact. We have received no Report from Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and, in fact, there has not boon time to receive any despatch stating the reasons for that course being taken. It would be very easy to give hypothetical reasons; but, because they are hypothetical, I do not think it would be desirable to state them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask a Question arising out of the answer given just now by the Under Secretary in connection with the Notice I gave him yesterday. I wish to ask him what arrangements have been made, or whether any arrangements have been made, for the security of British subjects in Cairo, and, I would add, in other parts of Egypt; and, whether there is anyone connected with the Government at Cairo with whom they could communicate in case of necessity?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has given Notice of a Question similar to the last Question put by the right hon. Baronet; and, as a matter of courtesy to him, perhaps I should defer answering it until his Question comes on. As regards the first Question
  1412
  of the right hon. Baronet, he must be aware that as Cairo is not a seaport, and we are not in military occupation of the country, we cannot give immediate protection at Cairo; but this would not diminish the responsibility of the de facto authority in Egypt if outrages on British subjects were committed.
  MR. ONSLOW: Are the refugees put on board ship to pay for their board and lodging?
  [The Question not having been answered,]
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will repeat the Question.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the date when the earthworks were first commenced at Alexandria, and how long a period elapsed, after the commencement of those works, before the guns wore mounted; what communications the Government received from the Admiral in command of the Fleet with respect to those works during that interval; and, whether he will lay those communications upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The construction of earthworks appears to have begun at daylight on the 29th ultimo. On the 4th of June, the Admiral reported by telegraph that two guns had been mounted that morning. Very brief telegraphic communications on the subject of the earthworks were received between these two dates. I should see no personal objection to the despatches from the Admiral upon this subject being included in the Papers; but the question is one for the Admiralty to decide.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is a Diplomatic or Consular Agent of Her Majesty now at Cairo to protect British subjects there; and, whether, if so, he is instructed to hold official communications with Arabi Pasha?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir. There is a Consular Agent at Cairo. He has not received any instructions from the Foreign Office with regard to his official communications, and the instructions which Sir Edward Malet may have given him are not yet in our hands.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1413
  Whether the list of killed which he read to the House includes the names of all Her Majesty's subjects killed during the riot at Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The list telegraphed and read by me was one of British-born subjects killed. To prevent any possibility of omission, we have telegraphed to know whether, under that title, all subjects of Her Majesty were included?
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in sending the troops now said to have been telegraphed for by the Khedive and Dervish Pasha, the Sultan will do so as Sovereign of Egypt or as mandatory of the European Powers; and, 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: I already informed my hon. Friend yesterday that I should be unable to answer this Question. I may say, however, that it has been a matter of discussion among the Powers.

  LAW AND POLICE-PROCESSIONS OF THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to his letter of last year, addressed to magistrates, directing them to restrain the processions of the "Salvation Army," and having regard to the recent decision of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, in the case of Beatty v. Gillbauks, declaring the processions of the "Salvation Army" to be "perfectly legal," what steps he proposes to take towards undoing the effect of that letter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This Question is put under some misapprehension. I have frequently explained that the Home Office does not issue directions to the magistrates. I often hear of Circulars from the Home Office. The Home Office never issues Circulars, except when it is asked for information. What it does when magistrates consult it is to give them the best advice in its power in the particular cases with regard to which it is consulted. Papers on the subject are already on the Table of the House; and the 1 on. Member
  1414
  will see from them that for the last 20 years the Home Office has given the same advice to magistrates who have consulted it, that advice being founded on the opinion of successive Law Officers of the Crown. I have not, as my hon. Friend knows, in consequence of the pressure of Business, had an opportunity of particularly examining the legal decision to which he refers, as to whether it does or does not conflict in any way with the opinion which has been given by the Law Officers to which I have referred. From a cursory view, I should say no; but I have directed the matter to be referred to the Law Officers for their opinion. All I can say is, that I should extremely regret if it should turn out to be the law that magistrates have not the power to prevent by anticipation collision between party processions; because, although in some places there might be an overwhelming force of police to prevent disorder, in places where the police force was weak that state of things would inevitably lead to confusion and disorder. When I have had the advantage of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject, I shall be able to give some information with regard to it.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the Statute of Edward III., which was now being applied in Ireland for the maintenance of the peace, would apply to England also?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOTTRTsaid, he had not had an opportunity of considering the Question.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that next week he should put another Question on this subject.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked whether the Home Secretary would communicate the opinion of the Law Officers to the House.
  [No reply was given.]

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND) —LORD CLON-CURRY'S TENANTS—ERECTION OF HUTS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Standard" and "Freeman's Journal," of yesterday, by which it would appear that the permission granted by the Lord Lieutenant to erect huts for Lord Cloncurry's evicted tenants has been re-

  1415
  voked; and, whether there is any truth in the paragraph?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. The permission has not been revoked.
  MR. PARNELL: Then there is no foundation for the rumour that the erection of the huts has been interfered with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is no foundation for the rumour.
  Subsequently,
  MR. TREVELYANsaid: I do not know whether I should be in Order if I took this opportunity to amplify the answer which I have given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I wish to add that one of the most able special magistrates in Ireland—one who has succeeded as well as any special magistrate in the management of his district —gave the Lord Lieutenant the advice that in the case of these huts for sheltering evicted tenants he himself acted on the principle that, wherever there was any reason to apprehend they would be used for purposes of intimidation, a police hut should be erected with them. The Lord Lieutenant, after consultation with the special magistrates, had directed that that system should be adopted.
  MR. GIBSONasked if these huts would be erected on the same spot as those erected for the purpose of intimidation would have been had that been allowed?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that was an was an important Question, to which he could not then give a reply. He would answer on Monday, and he hoped that would be sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether, since the Lord Lieutenant had come to the decision referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, huts might now be erected under all conditions for evicted tenants, provided that protection was afforded against intimidation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is difficult to explain without raising a debate; but I may say that the reports of the special Resident Magistrates prove very clearly that there has been a divergence of opinion on the subject. One set of magistrates stated that all huts were intended for purposes of intimidation, and others stated that that was not so. The Lord Lieutenant has decided that, where the special Resident Magistrate
  1416
  of the district held out any apprehension of intimidation, the best way would be to have police huts also erected. In the present state of Ireland, I feel myself justified in saying that that decision was received with satisfaction by eminent officials whose names, were I to give them, would carry conviction.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether these magistrates, among whom there was such a divergence of opinion, would be chosen to exercise summary powers under the Coercion Act?
  [No reply was given.]

  NEWSPAPERS—INCITING LANGUAGE —THE"GLASGOW HERALD."
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the editor of the "Freiheit" was prosecuted and convicted for general incitement to assassination; if his attention has been called to the following from the "Glasgow Herald":—
  "To govern an Irishman you must get him down, then you must kick him till he cant get up, then you must sit on him in case he comes to;"
  and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of prosecuting that journal for recommending the murder and ill-treatment of Irishmen?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no knowledge of the paragraph except what I have in this Question. If the hon. Member wishes for my opinion upon it, I will say I object very much to strong language being employed to any class of Her Majesty's subjects, including Irishmen as well as others; but then the hon. Member must take it that I include in that statement all classes of Irishmen, including even magistrates and constables. No strong language should be employed; but when the hon. Member asks me to compare it with the language of The Freiheit, all I can say is that the two things do not seem to be at all parallel.

  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, Whether, as there are still in prison in Ireland ninety-one "suspects" who are not suspected of association with crime

  1417
  and considering the length of time that has elapsed since the decision of the Government to set such "suspects" at liberty was announced, he can say that the releases of these ninety-one persons will now be steadily proceeded with in every case in which it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that the release of any particular "suspect" will not prejudice the condition of his district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question only appeared this morning, and I have consequently been unable to consult the Lord Lieutenant in reference to it. I can, however, state that the cases of all the persons in the category mentioned in the Question are being considered by His Excellency; and from time to time he orders the release of those in respect of whom he is satisfied that such order may be made without danger to the peace of the district.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Patrick Kelly, of Geevagh, County Sligo, was arrested on Sunday last, conveyed to Galway Gaol, and imprisoned there under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant dated thirteen months ago; whether this arrest was made with the concurrence of the heads of the Irish Executive; and, whether, in view of the adoption and development of the policy of release, it is the intention of the Irish Executive to hold Mr. Kelly in custody?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Patrick Kelly has been arrested as stated in the Question. The arrest was made without communicating with the Government, and His Excellency is now making inquiry as to the necessity for Kelly's detention.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. P. Quinn, imprisoned under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, was removed some time ago from the prison of Kilmainham to the prison at Enniskillen, and has now been again removed from Enniskillen to Kilmainham, or that an order for such second removal has been made; and, if so, what is the reason?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Quinn was removed last March from Kilmainham to Enniskillen for certain reasons which no longer exist, and His Excellency has thought it right now to remove him back to Kilmainham.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—DEATH FROM EXPOSURE AFTER EVICTION AT RHODE, KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. Gowing, coroner, attended at Rhode, King's County, on Wednesday last, to open an inquest upon the body of a child, aged twelve months, who died from exposure after an eviction; that if, at the time of the eviction, the infant was suffering from measles, and in a dangerous state; whether the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Caulfield, wrote to the coroner stating he had not time to summon a jury, although he had received the coroner's warrant at 8 a.m. on the previous Tuesday; if the coroner had ordered the exhumation of the infant's body, and had stated that he must now leave the matter in the hands of the Government; whether, at the time of the eviction above alluded to, the resident magistrate prevented the erection of temporary buildings to shelter the evicted; and, what steps the Government will take as against the neglect of the Sub-Inspector, and as to the prevention to erect some shelter for these evicted persons?
  MR. SEXTONhad a Question on the Paper to the same effect.
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question and that of the hon. Member for Sligo following relate to the same subject, and both appeared for the first time this morning. I have called for immediate Reports, but cannot possibly reply to the Questions to-day.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, 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 the maintenance of the authority of the present Khedive; whether he will state the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to press upon the Sultan his assent to a Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will join in any demand which the Powers may make upon the Sultan to act as their mandatory instead of as Sovereign of Egypt?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Before the Question is answered, I should like to

  1419
  ask when it is likely that the measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested for the restoration of law and order in Egypt will be before the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the last Question, I do not know quite what is the meaning of it. The measures that have been taken by the Governments of England and France, or by England or France, will appear, of course, in the Papers that are in preparation. If the noble Lord means to ask whether the measures which the Government will recommend to the Conference will be in possession of the House, it would be premature for me at the present time, when the date for the Conference has not even been fixed, to make a statement on the matter. With respect to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), I thank him for calling my attention to the subject last evening. With respect to the first part of the Question, the Government has never at any time made a complaint of the indisposition of the Porte to take the measures which have been suggested to it by the Governments of England and France. I stated on Tuesday very emphatically, that at the present moment our relations with Turkey were very satisfactory, and that there was a strong spirit of co-operation between the Government and the Sultan. With respect to the second portion of the Question, I am sorry to say, Sir, that I cannot state the reasons which have influenced the Government in pressing upon the Sultan his assent to the Conference, because to do that at the present moment, although it would be a proper subject for future investigation, would be decidedly impolitic, beyond saying that they are reasons in which there has been, according to the latest advices in my possession, a general concurrence among the whole of the Powers of Europe. With regard to the third part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government had stated explicitly that, in their opinion, the Sultan has not parted with the Sovereignty of Egypt, and they believe that opinion to be shared by the rest of the Powers.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Are we to have an opportunity of knowing the nature of the measures to be taken before the Conference meets; and will there not be any possibility of a discussion in this House upon those measures? I do not
  1420
  specify the measures, because I do not know what they are.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think it would be possible for us—and it would not be wise if possible—to undertake to predict or speculate upon what the Conference may determine. When you enter into joint council, either among individuals or Powers, you reserve to a certain extent your final decision, whilst you may lay your first opinions before those with whom you are going to take counsel. Evidently that is the nature of the Conference; and nothing could more tend to defeat the purposes of the Conference than for the separate Powers, each of them individually, to make known the views with which they would commence the Conference.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask who is the de facto Governor of Egypt at the present moment? Considering the grave state of Egypt, not only at Alexandria, but at Cairo and elsewhere, and the danger in which the European subjects are placed, can the Government state whether Turkish troops are now on their way to Egypt; and, if so, what is their number? Yesterday the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hardly gave us an answer to that question, I should also like to ask the Prime Minister if he will state whether a sufficient force is now ready to land, so as to ensure that protection, which is naturally looked for, considering our paramount interests in Egypt?
  MR. O'KELLY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can also state whether there is any truth in the statement that the French Government are preparing to send 20,000 men to Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the last Question, I have never heard of the statement, and have no reason to believe that it is true. With regard to the Questions of the hon. and gallant Baronet, it is extremely difficult, without Notice, to answer with accuracy a long series of Questions put across the Table. I am not, aware, Sir, whether Turkish troops are on their way to Egypt from Constantinople. As to whether a sufficient force was ready to land for the purpose of protecting British life and property, I do not think it would be expedient—considering the risks that are run, and that we know are run, by the prevalence of unauthorized rumours with respect to the landing of a foreign

  1421
  force in Egypt—I do not think it would be expedient in me to enter in any manner into that subject. We have committed to most competent hands the disposal of the means which we have placed at their command. With regard to the Question who is de facto Ruler of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government have no further information than that which has been made known to the House. The Khedive is the de facto Ruler of Egypt, and the Khedive has, under pressure, consented to receive back Arabi Pasha in the capacity of Minister of War. These facts are well known to the House, and I do not think there is anything that it is in our power to add.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether any news has been received as to the present state of affairs in Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not mean political news; but news with regard to the security of the people. The news received since yesterday is, on the whole, of a re-assuring nature. There has been no fresh outbreak or disturbance of any kind, and we have no reason to apprehend any.
  MR. BOURKE: I beg to give Notice that on Monday, if it is convenient to the Prime Minister, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, before the proposed Conference takes place, Parliament will be informed what the bases agreed upon are; and, what are the limits within which discussions are to be confined?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the Prime Minister, Whether he will give an assurance to Parliament that, in the event of a Conference upon Egyptian Affairs, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war?
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that on Monday he would ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he had seen the correspondence in the "Cologne Gazette" giving the views of the German colony in Egypt, and stating that the real and serious danger to peace arose from the anti-Mahomedan attitude of the English and French Governments; whether it was true that the Consuls for Germany, Austria, and Italy, in order to obviate the peril arising from such a policy,
  1422
  waited on Arabi Pasha and induced him to become responsible for peace and order; whether, in consequence of their representations, which Arabi received with much dignity and intelligence, he agreed with his comrades to preserve order?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I quite admit the difficulty of answering Questions not on the Paper; but these Questions arise day by day, so that it is impossible to put them down beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that Turkish troops are not being sent—
  MR. GLADSTONE: I never said so.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: He said that he was not aware that Turkish troops were being sent.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Were on their way.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Well, the Question I wish to ask is— and I ask it because a satisfactory answer will go far to allay public feeling— Can the Government give us an assurance that they will not shrink from taking any stop which is necessary to protect European life and property in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government are aware that they are responsible for using, to the best of their ability, all the means at their command for that purpose.
  MR. ONSLOW: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, might I be allowed to ask what are the means at their command which the Government are using at the present time at Cairo?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND)—LORD ROSSMORE'S ESTATE.
  MR. DILLONwished to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which he had sent him private Notice.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not received it.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would be able to answer it without Notice. It was, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had been informed that several writs for arrears of rent had been served on the estates of Lord Rossmore and the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, in county Monaghan; that three of those writs had been executed on the estate of

  1423
  the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, the tenants' interests being purchased on behalf of the landlord by his bailiff, so as to debar those tenants from all rights under the Arrears Bill? Also, whether his attention had been called to a letter from the Rev. Mr. Donnelly, of June l2th, in which he stated that writs were being served all over the Rossmore estate for rents which the tenants had no means of paying—a proceeding which meant the utter destruction and annihilation of the tenants; and, whether, when that same system was being pursued in many parts of Ireland, he, with a view of putting a stop to such a state of things, would not at once introduce a short Bill to put a stay —say for six months—to all evictions in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question is very voluminous and important; and, as the matters to which it refers have not before come to my notice, I am not in a position at this instant to give any answer, except in regard to the last clause—legislation—in respect to which I can only refer the hon. Member, however disappointing it may be, to the answer I have already given — namely, that, in my opinion, it would only make confusion worse confounded if the Government were to attempt to introduce any Bill for the object suggested.

  EGYPT AND ITALY—CESSION"OF ASSAB BAY.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I wish to ask the leave of the House to make a short personal explanation with reference to a Notice which I quoted yesterday, and which was publicly given last Friday by the hon. Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday said that the words of his Notice on Friday last were—"Also, in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy"—not "by Her Majesty's Government." I have refreshed my memory of the Notice as he gave it publicly before the objectionable words were struck out by the Clerk at the Table as being argumentative. They spoke of "the further danger caused," in respect of the security of the Suez Canal, "by the recent cession, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, of Assab Bay to Italy." It was on these words that I severely commented at the time.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am anticipated, to some extent, by the action taken by the hon. Member for Chelsea; but I think, Sir, the explanation which the hon. Member has given fully shows how correct I was in the statement which I made yesterday, and how utterly incorrect were the words which he attributed to me. I should have thought that with the experience which the hon. Member has had, or ought to have had, of foreign affairs, he would have recognized the vast difference between the words "by Her Majesty's Government" and the words "with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I objected to the whole statement of a cession. There has been no cession of any kind, either with or without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: That is a question which does not arise. The hon. Member said yesterday that in my Question occurred the words, "the cession of Assab Bay to Italy by Her Majesty's Government." I ventured then to get up and deny that. The hon. Gentleman did not accept my denial, but repeated his statement, and added these words—"I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member." In order to satisfy myself on a point as to which I was more or less certain—that I could not have put into a Question such an absurdity as the cession of a part of one country to another by a third country to which it did not belong—I went to the Record Office of the House, and there I found the manuscript of my original Question. It stands as follows:—
  With respect to the recent cession of Assah Bay, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."
  And bore, again, I must ask permission of the House to make a remark. The hon. Member said that these words had been struck out by the Clerk at the Table. I hold in my hand the original manuscript of my Question, and these words are not struck out.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There is no difference of opinion on the mere point of fact. The words did not appear in the Notice as printed in the Questions on the Paper next morning; and they wore not put in the Question which was really asked.
  BARON HENEY DE WORMS: I quite accept that explanation; but I should be glad to know how the hon. Member knows that the words he read had been struck out?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already informed the hon. Member that I was present at the time when he gave his Notice; and I have refreshed my memory this morning by referring to no less than four newspapers, in which it appears at full length; and perhaps I may be allowed to add that one of the greatest difficulties in answering Questions on foreign affairs is that Notices which are given here publicly, with a certain set of words, appear in the newspapers with that set of words; but words which are argumentative being struck out by the Clerk at the Table, Questions have to be answered in an altogether different form.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: On that point I may be allowed to say that this Question was given publicly, and, moreover, it was read over by me to the Clerk at the Table, and no objection was taken by him to the words. I therefore reasonably assumed that those words would be inserted in the Question. But when the hon. Gentleman stated so positively that those words had been expunged at the Table, he led the House to the impression that when I gave my Question to the Clerk the words were expunged, and that I was aware of it. Moreover, he said that he regretted that they had been expunged, as otherwise they would have met with an indignant reply from the Prime Minister. I can, of course, accept that indignation by proxy from the hon. Gentleman; but, at the same time, I do not think it affects the question at all. I think it is very much to be regretted that an hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of the hon. Member for Chelsea should have attributed openly in this House to another Member words for which there is not the slightest foundation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CORONER OF THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. William Clarke, of Rathleague, the coroner for the Queen's County, dropped dead in his residence on the 11th instant; who was the proper official to hold an
  1426
  inquest, if necessary, upon the body; whether Baron Dowse refused to fiat the presentment, at the Queen's County Assizes at Maryborough, for the salary of Dr. Robert O'Kelly, late of Ballyroan, Queen's County, but now residing at Ballyragget, in Kilkenny; whether there is any coroner for the Queen's County at present; and, whether there will be two writs de coronatore eligendo issued to the sheriff, as on the death of one coroner and the ouster of another?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I telegraphed for information, but have not yet received it.

  COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—THE ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. COURTNEY: Next week.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—"QUESTIONS."
  MR. HEALYasked the Prime Minister, Whether, seeing the great amount of time now occupied by the asking of Questions in the House with regard to Foreign Affairs, he would not consider the advisability of commencing the proceedings on the Prevention of Crime Bill at once on the meeting of the House, and take the Questions after Progress was reported—after 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, Whether it was not a fact that three or four times as many unimportant Questions were asked on Irish affairs as were put on other subjects?
  [No reply was given to the Questions.]

ORDER OF THE BAY.

  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 I5th June.]

  THIRTEENTH NIGHT.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART II.

  OFFENCES AGAINST THIS ACT.
  Clause 7 (Illegal meetings).
  MR. P. MARTINmoved, in page 4, line 17, to leave out from "any" to "shall," in line 18, and insert—
  "And, 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 thereupon."
  The hon. and learned Member said he understood the Home Secretary to state that there was only one portion of this Amendment which he substantially objected to—nauiely, the latter part, which allowed persons attending the prohibited meeting half-an-hour for enabling them to disperse. Now, in reference to that objection, and to that alone, he wished to say that he had put the Amendment on the Paper with a twofold object— first, that any force which might be sent to disperse a meeting should be under the check, control, and guidance on all occasions of magistrates; and, in the next place, to secure that the persons present at the meeting should receive a notification from the magistrates that the meeting was illegal, and thus have notice and warning before they became subject to the severe consequences which would be entailed upon them by remaining. Under the circumstances, and with the object he had stated, he trusted the Amendment would be accepted in its entirety. In the Act of 1833 a quarter of an hour was allowed for a notification to the people that a meeting was unlawful. He had added to that a further quarter of an hour for this reason —they all knew that in cases of a much more serious character than those which Were likely to occur under this Bill, where a riot attended with danger to life and property was likely to happen, the rioters got an hour after the reading of the Riot Act for the purpose of enabling them to disperse. If the Lord Lieutenant sent down Justices of the Peace to declare unexpectedly that a meeting was an unlawful one, it was not unreasonable to ask that the persons present should be allowed half-an-hour after the notification made to them, for the
  1428
  purpose of going quietly away. It must be recollected that some of the persons might be present at a distant part of the place where the meeting was held, and might only hear of its prohibition from conversations with others some time after the notification had been made. He hoped the Government, having regard to these circumstances, would not diminish the effect of the concession they had made by insisting on the omission from the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 17, leave out from "Any" to "shall," in line 18, and insert "and, 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 hold, 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 thereupon."—(Mr. Patrick Martin.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were perfectly willing to accept the Amendment; but they must accept with it the addition of the word "forthwith," in substitution of the words "within the space of one half-hour." If the clause were fettered by any specified time, it would be clearly giving to the persons present at the meeting a period within which they might practically disobey the law; and the Government were of opinion that the word "forthwith," instead of the stated time given by the hon. and learned Member, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. He would, therefore, move to amend the Amendment by striking out the words "within the space of one-half hour," and substituting the word "forthwith."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "within the space of one half-hour," in order that the word "forthwith" be there inserted.—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. HEALYasked, if it was not necessary that the Amendment itself should be carried, before any Amendment could be inserted in it?
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that that was not necessary.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that in reference to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the law might be disobeyed if a period were allowed within which the people were to disperse, he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under Lord Grey's Act, the people got a quarter of an hour, and why the Prime Minister should now require a more stringent measure he could not understand. The law might be broken in a quarter of an hour as well as in half-an-hour. It was quite evident that the Chief Secretary had had no experience in regard to dispersing public meetings in Ireland, and he could not know how that operation was carried out. He (Mr. Healy) had seen a meeting dispersed. He had seen Mr. Clifford Lloyd come up at Drogheda and order his police, with drawn swords, and with loaded guns pointed at the people, to clear the meeting. That was a very summary process, and if the same course were to be taken under this Bill, he could not see how the power of the Government would be by any means impaired. At Drogheda, when the people were actually dispersing, Mr. Clifford Lloyd told them, while they were going away, that if they did not clear out more quickly he would fire upon them. That was the kind of power exercised by Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the 1st of January, 1881; and if the Government allowed this interval of half-an-hour in order to enable the people to disperse, they would still possess all the power they could desire in the event of a breach of the peace. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the people attending a meeting would be likely to break the law if a space of half-an-hour were conceded to enable them to disperse quietly was evidently made under an entire misapprehension of the facts. It must have been based upon some idea of a softness of character pervading the breasts of the Irish magistrates, which, in reality, did not belong to them. He (Mr. Healy), therefore, thought the Government might safely assent to this proposition, seeing that in the time of Lord Grey a quarter of an hour was actually given for this purpose. If the Government would not give half-an-hour, or even a quarter of an hour, he would take ten minutes, or,
  1430
  to split the difference, even seven minutes and a-half.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsupported the Amendment. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) proposed half-an-hour. The Government proposed "forthwith," and his right hon. Friend interpreted forthwith to mean a reasonable time. He would suggest that if half-an-hour could not be allowed, a quarter of an hour, or the words, "within a reasonable time thereafter," would be more satisfactory than the Government proposition. As the law now stood, the Riot Act provided a period of one hour, and the Peace Preservation Act passed by Lord Grey in 1833 gave a quarter of an hour. Why would not the Government say "thereafter within a reasonable time should disperse?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government felt a difficulty in accepting the Amendment. The view of his right hon. Friend was that, if they fixed an arbitrary time, it might tell both ways. For instance, it might inform a man that he might take a certain time in order to break the law. If they said "forthwith," then the legal meaning of that term was that it should be within a reasonable time. Of course, it could not be intended that a meeting which it was considered desirable to prohibit under these circumstances should be instantaneously dispersed.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was at a loss to understand why the words were inserted in the Amendment requiring two or more Justices of the Peace to attend at the place where there was reason to believe an unlawful meeting was to be held, in order to notify its prohibition.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that that was altogether another point. He thought it would be better to dispose of the matter now before the Committee first.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not understand exactly what it was the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to dispose of. The words "two or more Justices of the Peace" came in the Amendment before those they were now discussing.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) was not at present before the Committee; but it would come on

  1431
  immediately the point now under discussion was disposed of.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the two Justices of the Peace mentioned in the Amendment would, under any circumstances, be allowed to sit on the Bench and dispose of the case afterwards? He thought some guarantee ought to be given that the two magistrates who ordered the dispersion of the people should not be allowed to sit in judgment upon any offender.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that matter would come on directly the present Amendment was disposed of. At the present moment, the Committee were considering whether the word "forthwith" should be substituted for "within the space of one half-hour."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it so happened that he had had experience in dispersing unlawful assemblies in England, and he knew from experience that the magistrates ought to be intrusted with a discretion in judging whether their order was being complied with from the first. He had known a case in which the mob removed to a distance of 100 yards and then assembled again. That evidently was an evasion of the order; and, if any time had been specified for the dispersion of a meeting, the magistrates would have been unable to discharge their duties. He must also say that, in his opinion, the magistrates intrusted with the duty of dispersing unlawful assemblies were those best qualified to judge of the conduct of those who were present on such occasions.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'forthwith within a reasonable time,' be there inserted."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what he wanted to draw attention to was the very unnecessary provision that the attendance of two Justices of the Peace should be necessary for the prohibition of a meeting.
  THE CHAIRMANremarked that the Committee had not yet reached that point. It would come on immediately after the present Amendment was disposed of.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should certainly like to know what was meant by the words "forthwith within a rea-
  1432
  sonable time?" He understood that it might be necessary to perform an act "forthwith," or that it might be necessary to perform an Act within a reasonable time; but he had never heard of the two being brought into conjunction together. If persons were to be dispersed "forthwith" it was usually understood that they were to be dispersed within a reasonable time; but if they said "within a reasonable time," they allowed the persons present at the meeting to constitute themselves the judges of what was and what was not a reasonable time. In a matter of this kind, it was most desirable that there should be no ambiguity of expression. He did not wonder at the cheers with which the proposed Amendment had been received by the Irish Members; it could only be received with complete support by those who had no very great desire for the success of the Act. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought hon. Members below the Gangway who derisively cheered would admit the justice of his remark; and he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General for England to state what he believed to be the real meaning of this extraordinary expression.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the meaning of the word "forthwith," if it stood alone without any further addition, would be "within a reasonable time;" but the addition of words making the clause run "forthwith within a reasonable time" made the matter perfectly plain. By using that expression, it became clear that an instantaneous dispersion was not contemplated.
  MR. HEALYcomplained of the manner in which the time of the Committee was being consumed on small points by Members of the Tory Party. If the Irish Members were guilty of the same thing, they were immediately accused of Obstruction.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in consequence of the remarks of the previous speaker, desired to point out that the expression to which he had called attention was a novel phrase which had never, so far as he knew, occurred before in an Act of Paliament. He thought it was by no means a waste of time, to ask the responsible Legal Advisers of the Government for an explanation.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had certainly meant, in proposing the word

  1433
  "forthwith," to say "within a reasonable time;" but he had no objection to add the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, if by so doing it became impossible for a lawyer to raise a difficulty.
  Question, "That the words forthwith within a reasonable time' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that the original Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had not yet been put from the Chair. He wished himself to move an addition to that Amendment if he were not too late.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, any Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member must come after the words "forthwith within a reasonable time."
  MR. PARNELLintimated that his Amendment would come after those words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then it would be quite regular.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had already stated that he wished to take exception to the words in the early part of the Amendment, "two or more justices." He had understood the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to rule that the exception was taken too soon, but that it would be regular to take it afterwards.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct; but he had already put the Question that the Amendment, as amended, be inserted, and it had been agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERremarked that he had been listening as closely as he could to the proceedings of the Committee, and he certainly had not understood that the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had been put.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had put two Questions—first, that the Amendment be amended, and when that was passed by the Committee he put the Question that the Amendment, as amended, be inserted, and as there was no dissent, he declared that the "Ayes" had it.
  MR. PARNELLwished to add the words—
  "Provided they shall knowingly refuse to disperse after such intimation, or shall previously have received such intimation that such meeting had been prohibited."
  The Amendment had been framed with the object of meeting the intention expressed by the Home Secretary on the previous evening, when he admitted the desirability of inserting some words to make it clear that a man should not be convicted unless he had knowingly committed the offence of attending a proclaimed meeting. It appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that this was the best way of carrying out that desire of the Home Secretary, and it would meet the requirement which he had sought to obtain by the Amendment which he had moved last night, which specified that notice should be given by the Lord Lieutenant of his intention to prohibit a meeting. The adoption of this Amendment would render it necessary that in order to obtain a conviction against any persons it should be necessary to show that after having received an intimation that the meeting had been forbidden they should knowingly have refused to disperse.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, after the word "thereupon," to insert—"In case they shall knowingly refuse to disperse after such intimation, or shall previously have received such intimation that such meeting had been prohibited."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would feel that there was every desire on the part of the Government to consider his Amendment in the fairest spirit. The hon. Member said that last night the Home Secretary admitted the desirability of inserting some words of this kind. When his right hon. and learned Friend said that, he wished to protect persons against being convicted on account of an act of ignorance, and he said that the safeguards contained in the Bill would be retained. He (the Attorney General) thought the Committee would see that proper safeguards had been taken in the Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin). By the previous part of

  1435
  the clause, it was required that the Lord Lieutenant should publish a prohibition of the meeting. It then became necessary that notice should be given to the promoters of the meeting that it was prohibited; and, thirdly, by the acceptance of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny, it was required that two Justices of the Peace should appear at the meeting and notify the order prohibiting the meeting and directing all persons present to disperse. What the hon. Member for the City of Cork asked was, that it should be proved to demonstration that a knowledge of the prohibition of the meeting had been brought home to different persons at it, after the proclamation was made, so as to prove that they were knowingly refusing to disperse. Now, he (the Attorney General) thought that the publication of the prohibition of the meeting, either in writing or by notice to the promoters of the meeting, and the proclamation of its prohibition, were quite sufficient without proving to demonstration that the persons present were made aware of the circumstances, and had knowingly refused to disperse. He could assure the hon. Member that there would have been every desire to accept his Amendment if the clause had remained as it was. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had an Amendment upon the Paper for the insertion of the word "knowingly;" but the Amendment now adopted would get rid of all difficulty, and was the best substitute that could be provided.
  MR. SEXTONregretted that the Government did not see their way to give a more favourable reception to this Amendment. The Attorney General had stated three reasons why, in the view of the Government, it was not considered necessary. In the first place, the Lord Lieutenant would be obliged to give public notice of the prohibition of the meeting. Now, what was a public notice? It simply meant that the Lord Lieutenant should issue a proclamation in The Dublin Gazette; but was it meant to assert that such a proclamation in Ireland was a public notice, sufficient to make known anything to the Irish people? An advertisement in The Dub, in Gazette would be about as effectual as if it were written on the walls of the Roman Capitol. The Irish people knew just as
  1436
  much about the one as of the other. In the next place, the Attorney General said that notice was to be given to the promoters of the meeting; but the promoters, acting upon a sense of the urgent necessity of the meeting, after receiving a notification from the Lord Lieutenant, might not convey it to the public. The promoters might determine to go on with the meeting and encounter all the hazards and penalties of the Bill, and the people all the time might know nothing about it. In the third place, the Attorney General said that two Justices wore to attend the meeting and notify its prohibition to the persons present. But the Irish magistrates wore no uniform, and had no distinguishing mark; they would be dressed like any other persons, and entering a meeting suddenly they would make an announcement which might not reach the ears of the majority of the persons present. There was the utmost necessity that there should be some protection for the public generally, because some time might elapse after an announcement was made before it became generally known. The Attorney General said that before they could bring it home to the knowledge of the persons present it would be necessary to probe the minds of the people, and that there was no provision in the English law for probing the minds of the people. But the Attorney General knew very well what was meant by circumstantial evidence. If the surrounding circumstances showed that the people present at a meeting knew that it was proclaimed it would only be necessary to apply to them the ordinary rules of circumstantial evidence. He thought that two things were necessary before persons should be convicted under the clause—first, that they should have got previous notice of the prohibition of the meeting; and, secondly, it should be proved that they were knowingly contravening the law. He thought the reasons given by the Attorney General were quite insufficient to justify the rejection of the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYasked if the Justices mentioned were to sit on the Bench and try any of the persons accused of breaking the law? Would the two Justices exercise both Judicial and Executive functions?
  MR. TREVELYANregretted that the Government could not give way. They

  1437
  could not consent to insert the word "knowingly." With respect to what the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said,hefound the usual method of advertising public meetings in Ireland had become so anomalous as to be a public scandal; but he did not think that hon. Members opposite would have reason to complain of the Government on that point. The real object of the Government would be to give full publicity to the fact that a meeting was prohibited. Then, in regard to the question of the two Justices not being the same Justices who might sit afterwards to try the case of persons who had refused to disperse, he might say that all these questions of the division of Executive and Judicial functions would be regarded by the Lord Lieutenant as administrative questions; and the Lord Lieutenant would prescribe the functions of the Justices, partly by a general Order contained in a Circular, and partly by the proceeding always adopted by the Castle, of directing certain Justices to go down to particular districts with administrative functions. The Government would be very unwilling to increase the size of the Bill, or to hamper the action of the Executive by saying positively that certain Justices in certain events should exercise certain functions. That would not appear in the Bill; but everything would be carefully considered, and would be dealt with in the Orders and Circulars issued by the Executive, and the whole matter would be conducted administratively and executively.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was sorry now that he had not had an opportunity of putting the Committee on their guard against the introduction of the words "two or more Justices of the Peace," because he believed they would be found to be a source of much inconvenience. He had demurred altogether to the part of the Amendment of the hon. and learned. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), which required the attendance of two or more Justices. [Mr. HEALY: Order, order!] He did not think that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was exactly the authority entitled to interrupt him on a point of Order. With all respect to the Committee, he would submit that the observations which had fallen from the Chief Secretary necessitated a reply from him (Mr. Lowther). The question had been asked
  1438
  the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Irish Government to prevent the Justices who, under the provisions of this section, would have to act in putting down or prohibiting a meeting from acting judicially in any proceedings which might arise in consequence of a disobedience of their orders?
  MR. PARNELLrose to Order. He wished to submit to the Chairman that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was not in Order in discussing the clause as a whole. It would be much better and more convenient if the Committee were allowed to go on with the discussion of the points involved in the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was quite true; but the hon. Member for Wexford had raised a distinct question as to the functions of the Justices of the Peace. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had answered the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) at some length; and it was only fair that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) should be allowed to speak on a question which had already engaged the attention of the Committee.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that hon. gentlemen below the Gangway were not slow to avail themselves of the utmost freedom of debate—he would not use a stronger expression—and he thought it would be well if they would allow the proceedings of the Committee to go on without offering to the Chairman their unsolicited assistance. He must point out that one difficulty which the Irish Government had hitherto had to contend against was that a large number of meetings were often simultaneously announced to take place within a comparatively limited area on the same day. He found that the case in the early stage of the proceedings of the Land League, which the hon. Member who had now assumed the office of Chairman, pro hac vice, would, no doubt, remember. The difficulty was that several meetings were announced on the same day within what was termed the same district. The Government, following the example often set in that House, where two or more persons were accustomed to talk at the same time, proposed to send down to every meeting two or more Justices to notify aloud that it was pro-

  1439
  hibited. He feared that if certain things laid down in the clause were insisted upon, it would become the practice for the persons convening meetings to ascertain, from sources already at their command, what particular meeting it was which the authorities were prepared to deal with, and they would then hold another meeting at a place where there would not be two or more Justices in attendance. He would not now dwell upon some of the points he had intended to dwell upon, and which he had intended to ask the Committee to avoid, if he had not been precluded by a circumstance for which he could not accept any share of responsibility. He had risen for the purpose of drawing attention to the words "two or more Justices;" but he was informed that he was not at that moment in Order in doing so, although an opportunity would present itself later on. He had resumed his seat in obedience to the suggestion of the Chairman; but although he was listening very attentively to the proceedings, the point was passed without any intimation being conveyed to him that he would be in Order in continuing his observations. He had, no doubt, been properly prevented by the Chairman from interposing when the point had been passed over; but he had conveyed to the Committee his desire to call attention to a special point, and without wishing to blame any other person,hedid not credit himself with any responsibility for having failed to keep the engagement he had made to the Committee in the matter. He regretted, therefore, that the Prime Minister should make audible observations which could not possibly tend to advance the discussion. He had no wish to use discourteous language; but up to this point did the right hon. Gentleman consider that the great difficulties of the task the Executive had to perform had been increased by the course pursued by that (the Opposition) side of the House? He would repeat that, knowing as he did from experience that a great number of meetings were frequently announced within a short distance from each other on the same day, he regretted that it should be seriously contemplated to hamper the administration of the law by providing that the same Justices of the Peace were never to exercise both Executive and Judicial functions.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As this discussion has not been terminated, I must recall the attention of the Committee to the Amendment now before them.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought there should be some words inserted in the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to make it necessary that there should be knowledge on the part of the persons attending a meeting before they became liable to punishment. It was true that the words he had suggested might seem to be rather cumbrous; but he thought they would fit in with the clause very well, and he would read it as it would stand with the adoption of the Amendment—
  "And, 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 thereupon in case they shall knowingly refuse to disperse after such intimation, or shall previously have received such information that such meeting had been prohibited."
  The Home Secretary specially stated, at one period of the discussion of his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment last night, that he would introduce words making it necessary that there should be knowledge on the part of the persons charged with an offence, so that no person who had not actual knowledge that he was committing an offence should be liable to the penalty imposed by the Act; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman also stated that he would provide that a fair notice should be given without defining the exact length to which that notice should go. Now, this Amendment did not provide what the Home Secretary certainly, at one period of the discussion, expressed himself willing to provide. He, therefore, trusted the Attorney General would see his way to carry out the object of the Amendment, and if he would submit other words to that effect, he (Mr. Parnell) would be perfectly willing to withdraw his own proposal.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was perfectly aware of what his right hon. and learned Friend had stated yesterday; but the view of the Government was that the

  1441
  safeguards now imposed were sufficient to prevent any person from placing himself unintentionally in a position in which he might be punished. If on the Report it was found that these words did not carry out the intention of the Government, then he was sure that either by an additional Amendment, or by some further action, the object sought to be accomplished would be attained. He hoped that that explanation would satisfy the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). There was no desire that an innocent person attending a prohibited meeting should be affected by the clause.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLwould suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he should accept the offer made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. He thought there was no difference between his hon. Friend and the Attorney General as to the object both of them desired—namely, that no person should be brought within the criminal category included in the section to whom a guilty knowledge had not been brought home. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that the offer of the Attorney General should be accepted, and that the matter should be left open for future consideration.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would accept the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), buthewould not ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. He would prefer that it should be negatived.
  MR. METGEwished to call attention to one point which had been raised by his Friend the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and that was that the notice given to the promoters that the meeting had been prohibited might possibly be withheld from the public, and might lead persons into the commission of crime who would otherwise have avoided it. There was a large portion of the people of Ireland who never looked into the newspapers at all; and however carefully a matter of this kind might be advertised, it would not be brought home to the knowledge of everybody. He would, therefore, suggest that it might be expedient to amend the clause in such a way as to secure that the notification might, to some extent, be given by the use of placards.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in regard to advertisements, but he thought the Government would see that a notification in The Dublin Gazette only would not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. It also ought to be advertised in the local papers.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not wish the hon. Member to infer anything from his statement, except that the prohibition of these meetings would be duly advertised. It must be borne in mind that within the last 12 months something like 1,200 meetings had been prohibited under the discretionary power of the Lord Lieutenant, and he believed that very little practical inconvenience had resulted from the course which had been taken by the Executive in making the announcement of the prohibition public. He was certainly under the impression that, as new legislative conditions wore laid down by the present Bill, the mode proposed to be adopted would be found to work satisfactory.
  MR. METGEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) seemed to forget that the arguments all through in support of this clause was that the clause itself was intended to meet some extraordinary circumstance. The Irish Members had contended all along that there was sufficient power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant already to repress these meetings. He was quite willing to leave the clause as it stood; but he hoped the Government would not allow anything to slip through that would prevent a fair knowledge of the prohibition of these unlawful assemblies being made thoroughly public
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. STOREY to move the next Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had been disposed of there were several Amendments on the Paper before that proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). There was one in his (Mr. Sexton's) name, and he wished to know if it would be possible for him to move it after the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had been, disposed of?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was absolutely necessary, in inserting the last Amendment that had been agreed to, to cut out certain words, and the Amendments which stood on the Paper and affected the words which had been cut out, could not be put.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the words of Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 had already been struck out, and they included the words affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
  MR. HEALYmoved, at the end of the Clause, to add the following subsection:—
  "A copy of every such order, and of the information upon which the same was founded, shall he laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the day on which such order was made, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  This, he thought, was a very important point, and one which the Government might reasonably accept. It was very desirable that there should be precise information on the part of the House, in case a renewal of this legislation was attempted; and the House should thoroughly understand what had been the nature of the meeting which had been prohibited. All he asked in this Amendment was, that a copy of the order, and of the information upon which it was founded, should be laid before Parliament. It was found, during the recent agitation, that meetings were constantly proclaimed on the affidavits of bailiffs, grooms, and stable-boys employed by the local magistrates. He thought, if a magistrate desired a meeting to be proclaimed, it was not sufficient that he should get his bailiff, groom, or stable-boy to make an affidavit that, in his opinion, a breach of the peace was likely to arise. The Government would see that that was a most undesirable thing; and that if any information was laid at all, it should be an information from an officer responsible for the preservation of the peace.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, add the following sub-section:—"A copy of every such order, and of the information upon which the same was founded, shall he laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the day on which such order was made, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, then within fourteen days
  1444
  after the next meeting of Parliament."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Committee had already decided in the negative the question of requiring sworn information for the prohibition of meetings. The question was raised 13 days ago, and he had then stated his objections to the use of the word "information" in the Bill, and he would not repeat them. He believed that he stated those objections at considerable length, so that they could not have been misunderstood. The Government, however, were quite ready to accept the Amendment if that part of it relating to the "information" was struck out. He would, therefore, move to omit the words "and of the information upon which the same was founded."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit "and of the information upon which the same was founded."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. LEAMYremarked, that if these words were left out, they would be in this position—that they would get just as much information as they were enabled to get under the Act from the Irish newspapers, and they would gain nothing by carrying the Amendment as it stood. What they wanted was this— they desired to know the information upon which the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise his exceptional powers? The Committee must bear in mind that the Lord Lieutenant, under this clause, got power to prohibit perfectly legal and lawful assemblies; and he would submit, that if the Committee gave the Lord Lieutenant that power, the least they could do was to ask him to give the grounds upon which he exercised it. It must not be forgotten that these assemblies could not be called unlawful until such time as the prohibition of the Lord Lieutenant was proclaimed. As a matter of fact, men might attend a meeting and the meeting would be quite lawful until such time as it was proclaimed. If, therefore, Parliament proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant power to put down assemblies that were perfectly lawful, the least they could do was to

  1445
  provide that the grounds and the information upon which they were prohibited should be given to Parliament.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Government admitted that the Lord Lieutenant must act on some information or other. Of course, he knew the Chief Secretary was not very well acquainted with the nature of the meetings that had hitherto been proclaimed. It was not unfrequently the case that a meeting in the North of Ireland was proclaimed because an Orangeman objected to it; and a sworn information was laid before an Orange magistrate, which was quite sufficient to stop the meeting. "Under this Bill, if a landlord or anybody else laid an information against the holding of a meeting, that should not be sufficient to justify the action of the stipendiary magistrate in putting it down, except it was considered to be unlawful upon adequate information by the responsibility of the Government themselves.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Committee had been told last evening that the reason why the functions of the Privy Council were not exercised in prohibiting these meetings was, that the Lord Lieutenant was to be wholly responsible. He had endeavoured to explain that he thought that would be a futile course; but, as the clause now stood, the Government would prevent any Member of the House of Commons by any possibility introducing a Motion to show the motives by which the Lord Lieutenant or anybody else might have been moved in prohibiting a meeting. He did not think, if the clause were passed as it at present stood, that either the Lord Lieutenant or the Government could be held to be responsible to anyone for any proclamation that was issued.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the pledge which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) asked for was one which the Government had given already more than once, and he was unwilling to repeat that nothing could exceed the care with which the Government of Ireland collected and weighed opinions before they proceeded to take any step of an arbitrary character, and those which were taken were not of very great frequency. [Mr. HEALY: Not now.] He could only speak for the existing Government of Ireland. His own experience was not sufficient to enable him
  1446
  to criticize the conduct of his Predecessors, or to make any engagements for his Successors; but as far as the present Government were concerned, he knew the methods by which their administration was carried on, and he could assure the Committee that it was their sole desire not to take any arbitrary step.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CALLANmoved, in page 4, line 18, at end, add—
  "Provided always. That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person he guilty of an offence under this Act who may be present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in this Clause enacted."
  The hon. Member stated that he had taken this Proviso ipsissima verba from a clause of the Act of 1833, to which the Home Secretary referred the day before yesterday. In an ordinary state of affairs in Ireland the power of the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit a meeting was quite sufficient, and he might corroborate the reference which had already been made to the prohibition of a meeting which occurred at Drogheda, on the 1st of January, 1881, to show that up to the present moment the Government had fully exercised their power of prohibiting meetings in Ireland. On that day — namely, January 1, 1881 — the twin brother or foster son of the Home Secretary, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, suppressed a meeting in Drogheda even without a proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, and without the consent of the late ungracious Chief Secretary, the lamentable Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). There had been no meeting in Ireland for the last six months of any kind whatever; and, therefore, it was not asking too much to restrict the power of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant, under the Common Law, had power to suppress meetings; but, as he had stated, there had been no meetings in Ireland under this Act. It so happened that the county of Louth was wedged between two or three other Irish counties, and he entertained a strong objection to the prohibition of

  1447
  meetings in that county because in some of the adjoining counties certain unlawful meetings might be held. He did not think the Lord Lieutenant would attempt to prohibit a meeting in the Province of Ulster, no matter what he might do in the Province of Leinster; and the object of the Proviso was to prevent the Lord Lieutenant from being egged on by irresponsible advisers to stop public meetings. If the Lord Lieutenant wanted to stop a meeting, he must previously complain that the state of the county was such as to require the application of the Act. The stringent provisions of this Bill should not be applied where the ordinary law was sufficient. He therefore begged to move the Proviso of which he had given Notice at the end of the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person be guilty of an offence under this Act who may be present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in this Clause enacted."—(Mr. Callon,.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had stated the other day that the Irish Government were exceedingly anxious, as far as they could, to apply the various clauses of the Bill, where they could apply them, to the principle that they should not operate universally in Ireland, but only in the proclaimed districts. The advantages of that object would be to give great encouragement to districts not to come under the proclamation, and to give great encouragement to other districts which were under proclamation to get rid of the proclamation. Practically speaking, it gave to the Lord Lieutenant the power of suspending the operation of the Act at any time by withdrawing the proclamation. That was the general advantage of adopting the principle of proclaiming districts, and the Government had desired to extend this power as far as possible, especially in the case of the extraordinary provisions given by Clause 5
  1448
  and Clause 11, which were provisions that did not exist before. These they regarded as the most inquisitorial provisions of the Bill; but they did not see their way to the application of this principle to the present clause. It had not been contested that it should not apply to Clause 6, which dealt with unlawful associations, and the Government had applied it to that clause because it was in the very nature of secret societies that they should be dealt with wherever they could be found. With regard to the present clause, it was considered desirable not to apply the principle of a proclaimed district, because it was the view of the Government that meetings might have the effect, not only of increasing the existing few disturbances, but of creating a tendency to disturbance even where it had not previously existed; thus, not only increasing an existing conflagration, but of spreading a conflagration to districts already quiet. That was the experience of the Irish Government, and it was a reason why Lord Spencer and the Irish Government, while they desired to extend, as far as they could, the principle of proclaimed districts, had arrived at the conclusion that they could not apply it to the provisions of the present clause.
  MR. SEXTONfelt bound to say that no more reasonable Amendment than this had been brought under the notice of the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had given no reason why the proposed provision should not be applied to Clause 7, except that in regard to secret societies it might be desirable to take the same course that was applicable to public meetings. This clause did not apply to secret societies, and it was somewhat singular that the same considerations that were held to apply in one instance to secret societies should, in the other case, be held to apply to open public meetings. Then, as to the arguments as to stopping the spread of a conflagration, surely it would be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to make his proclamation as wide as the district over which the conflagration was extending. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to other clauses of the Bill which required the application of the proclamation. Take the Curfew Clause, the 8th, which enacted—
  "That, in a proclaimed district, if a person is out of his place of abode at any time after one

  1449
  hour later than sunset and before sunrise under suspicious circumstances, any constable may arrest that person and bring him forthwith before a justice of the peace, and such justice, after inquiring into the circumstances of the case, may either discharge him or take the necessary steps, by committing him to prison, or taking bail, to bring him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, and if such person, on appearing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, fails to satisfy the Court that he was out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  But it must be borne in mind that, under that clause, no person prowling about after sunset could be arrested, however suspicious his appearance might be, unless the district had been previously proclaimed. He might wear a conical hat, be an entire stranger to the local Constabulary, have square-toed boots, but he could not be touched unless the district had been previously proclaimed. And even the Trans-Atlantic stranger, who was so horrible a bugbear to Her Majesty's Government, could not be arrested unless he made his appearance in a proclaimed district. Then Clause 11 provided that searches for arms and illegal documents should be made. The police might have positive information that a certain house contained muskets, masks, and all the paraphernalia for murder, but they were not able to enter it unless the district? was proclaimed. In these cases the Government had guarded the rights of individuals with great tenderness; but when they came to deal with the right of public meetings—that right which had so long been the safeguard of the liberty of the country, and which was the safety-valve for the feelings of the country—they arrived at the conclusion that such meetings ought to be stopped, whether they had been proclaimed or not. He contended that this was a great inconsistency. If a search for arms could not be made unless the district had been proclaimed, that was an infinitely stronger and more powerful case for the intervention of the Lord Lieutenant than the simple right to prohibit a public meeting; and, under these circumstances, he should support the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out the inconsistencey of this clause so far as proclaimed districts were con-
  1450
  cerned. At the same time, it was hardly consistent to discuss that clause now, seeing that the question of the proclamation of districts was not raised by it. He, for one, did not think that the Amendment was in the right direction. He was strongly of opinion that there ought to be no such clause in the Bill at all; but the Amendment must be argued on the assumption that the clause was in the Bill, and on that assumption he wished to point out how the Amendment would operate in a wrong direction. In the first place, the Government or the Lord Lieutenant must have the power according to their judgment of proclaiming a meeting in any part of the country, and they would only have to throw what he might call the proclamation - net wide enough in order to obtain that power universally; and he was afraid the effect of passing this Amendment would be to induce the Lord Lieutenant, under certain circumstances, to do that which he would not be prepared to do unless the absolute necessity for it were shown. Again, assuming that some such clause as the present was desirable, and must be contained in the Bill, it was perfectly obvious that there might be meetings in districts not proclaimed which, in the interest of the public safety, it might be desirable to suppress.
  MR. O'DONNELLconfessed that he was unable to follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) in this matter. The hon. and learned Member said he must proceed on the assumption that this clause was in the Bill; but thenhesaw special objections to requiring that the provision of the right of holding a public meeting should only be exercised in a proclaimed district. But why was this clause in the Bill at all? The excuse of the Government was that this clause was in the Bill because there were exceptionally disturbed districts in Ireland. Why should not those districts be proclaimed by way of example to the public outside those disturbed districts, and by way of warning to people within them? The only argument the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk brought forward in support of his objection to the Amendment was the extraordinary argument that the liberties of Ireland were to be placed in the power of the Lord Lieutenant, in order that he might have in his hands the power of sup-

  1451
  pressing public meetings and proclaiming districts that ought not to be proclaimed. No graver charge could be brought against any public officer than the charge which was applied in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It was based on the supposed readiness of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim districts that ought not to be proclaimed, for the mere purpose of having power to put down public expression of opinion. He would only say that if that was an argument accepted by Her Majesty's Government, the Government entertained an opinion of the Lord Lieutenant infinitely worse than had yet been expressed by the Irish Party. He must do justice to the Home Secretary, and say that his arguments did not imply quite so low an opinion of the general unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Executive The Home Secretary stated as his reason for objecting to this most acceptable Amendment, that the experience of the Irish Government went to show that public meetings might create a tendency towards disturbance. Now, taking the declaration of the Home Secretary for what it was worth, and for the light it threw upon the Lord Lieutenant, it was absolutely necessary that they should introduce some Amendment to limit that power. In the opinion of the Home Secretary, public meetings had a tendency to excite disturbances. They were not to be prohibited because they were unlawful in themselves, and contemplated unlawful acts, but because they might excite a tendency towards subversive sentiment, which might result in criminal acts next year or the year after; so that an unlimited extension were sought to be given to the reasons which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to suppress public meetings in Ireland. He listened with all due gravity to the Home Secretary's exposition of his experience in connection with the Irish Government, because he was not aware until that statement was made that the Home Secretary had been particularly distinguished for any experience of Irish affairs whatever. But, doubtless, the Home Secretary possessed the rare power of acclimatization; and, having already been in charge of a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he felt himself qualified to be "Sir Oracle" on all the details of the Irish Government,
  1452
  and all the results of Irish experience. What he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished to know was, if it was the experience of the Irish Government that public meetings and disturbing outrages were at all connected? If they were at all connected, it was in a way that was by no means favourable to the argument of the Home Secretary. When they suppressed public meetings they had disturbances and outrage, and not when they had public meetings. Since the meeting at Wexford, when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) criticized somewhat severely the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, at Leeds, there had been practically no public meetings in Ireland, and yet disturbance and outrage had most lamentably increased in that country. The experience of the Irish Administration distinctly went to show that the more public meetings were suppressed the more they promoted private outrages; and he was afraid there would be a further confirmation of that view if the peculiar Irish experience of the Home Secretary, who had never had any Irish experience at all, was to be taken into account, and the opinion of the Irish Members, who were well qualified to speak on the subject, was to be neglected and ignored by the Government.
  MR. GIVANsaid,hehad listened to all the arguments which had been adduced in the course of the discussion; but he saw no necessity for applying to every district in Ireland the same repressive measures in regard to the holding of public meetings. Reference had been made to the Province of Ulster, but in that Province, so far as he was aware, no public meetings had been held which were conducive to crime and disorder. If it could be shown that such meetings did take place there, it would be the duty of the Executive to prohibit them, on the ground that they were likely to endanger the public safety; but if it were absolutely necessary to proclaim districts in which public meetings were prohibited, the consequence might be that the whole of Ulster, and the most peaceable portions of Ireland, would come not only under the operation of this section, but also of the 8th —the Curfew Clause—and several other clauses which were regarded as stringent and objectionable. He entirely objected

  1453
  to the suggestion that the power to be conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant of putting a stop to meetings in Ulster, should involve the necessity of proclaiming that Province, or any district within it.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsupported the Amendment. He believed that if Ulster were brought under the stringent provisions of the clause, some day or other the people of that Province would join with the rest of the Irish people in asking for the restoration of the rights of the country generally. He supported the Amendment because he considered it to be a fair and reasonable one. He failed to see what reason there was for prohibiting a meeting in a district which was not disturbed. If a district was not disturbed, and there was no reason to proclaim it, why should they prevent any legal meeting being held? If it were found that meetings which were being held were intended to disturb the neighbourhood, it would be easy to proclaim them; but to prohibit a meeting, and to say that it should not be held in a district which was not disturbed, was not only unfair, but most unjust. He saw no reasonable ground why the Government should object to this addition to the clause. He failed to see that it would put them in a worse condition than they were at present. It would not deprive them of any power they now possessed in the slightest degree, and if a district was not in a disturbed state the Lord Lieutenant ought not to be invested with any special powers beyond thosehealready possessed, which would enable him to interfere with the right of free meeting.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Members who had criticized the Amendment in a hostile spirit had evidently not paid attention to the words of the Amendment. The Amendment was to the effect that the clause should have effect only in districts which had been previously proclaimed, and in which there was such disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers of the clause. Some hon. Members appeared to think that if the Amendment were adopted counties would be proclaimed, so as to subject every person residing in them to the consequences of being resident in a proclaimed district. That was a mistake. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend were accepted, it would
  1454
  simply give the Lord Lieutenant the power of proclaiming a district for a special purpose—namely, that he might be able to put down a meeting. It was proposed that if a man happened to be out after sunset, or was a stranger in the district, he should be liable to arrest; but this could only be done in a proclaimed district. Yet the present clause proposed to give power to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit a meeting in a district which was not proclaimed. He did not see, if the Amendment were adopted, how the Executive would be in a worse position than they were at pre-sent, because the Lord Lieutenant had already power to suspend any meeting whatever. He supported the Amendment, because he believed it would unquestionably tend to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givau) said there would be inducements, if the Amendment were adopted, to bring Ulster under the operation of the Bill. So far as he (Mr. Leamy) was concerned, he should be glad to see that inducement given effect to. He stood up for the right of free speech and liberty in Ireland; but he thought there ought to be liberty of speech all over Ireland, and if these restrictions were to be applied to the whole country, instead of finding a certain section of the Irish Members supporting the Government, they would be found in active opposition to the Bill. It certainly was an extraordinary thing to him how this clause could meet with any support at all from hon. Members opposite.
  MR. GIVANsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension into which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) had fallen. So far as he (Mr. Givan) was personally concerned, he objected to the clause altogether.
  MR. MARUMdesired to mention why he felt himself bound to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). It appeared to him that the fact of the Bill being of a general character, extending over the whole of Ireland, had been forgotten, and that no public meeting could be held to which this section would not apply. It must also be remembered that there was a very stringent clause applied to acts done or words spoken, so that that clause, taken with the present, placed liberty of speech at a very low ebb in-

  1455
  deed. He thought the provision in regard to words spoken ought to operate sufficiently, and he was of opinion that unless the Amendment were accepted the right of public meeting in Ireland would be put a stop to altogether.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, which would render the clause nugatory. If a proclamation were necessary to make a meeting illegal, the expedient would be resorted to of holding meetings in districts which were not proclaimed. He was old enough to remember the time when prize fights were of constant occurrence. They were considered illegal, and when it was known that one was about to take place a Justice of the Peace, attended by constables, went out to prevent it from taking place; but when they got to the spot, the whole assembly had migrated into an adjoining county in which the authorities, who had come to interrupt the proceedings, had no power, and thus an evasion of the law took place. So it would be if the prohibition of public meetings were confined to proclaimed districts. A meeting would be held in a district which had not been proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, the clause would be rendered nugatory by the acceptance of the Amendment.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was entirely under a misapprehension in regard to the case he had put. It would be impossible in Ireland for a meeting, after having been prohibited, to migrate to an unproclaimed district, because the Lord Lieutenant would still have the power of suppressing it. The only difference would be that it would be impossible to inflict a penalty of six months' imprisonment on the persons attending the meeting at the present moment. Without any proclamation at all the Lord Lieutenant had ample power for dispersing illegal meetings held in any district. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had fallen into the same error as the hon. Member for "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot). The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk said the Lord Lieutenant might be tempted, if the Amendment were accepted, to proclaim districts.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELL: To obtain the power given by the clause.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that meant the power of inflicting a penalty of six months' imprisonment. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had also fallen into an error in asserting that the object of the Amendment was to extend the powers of the Bill to Ulster. That was entirely contrary to the real facts of the case. Their object was to keep it away from places which were not disturbed; and if the Amendment were adopted, Ulster, not being a disturbed district, would be exempted from the operation of the provisions. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had mistaken the attitude of the Irish Members towards Ulster. The hon. Member had accused them of a desire to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ulster. They had opposed throughout its application to any part of Ireland; and if any hon. Member had helped Her Majesty's Government to pass this legislation, it was the hon. Member himself and his Friends, who had voted for the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. WARTONsuggested that the Irish Members might attain their object by moving to amend the clause on Report by prefixing to it the words "in proclaimed districts."
  MR. METGEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was acting under the same misapprehension as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). The words of the Amendment did not seek to proclaim the district, but they were to the effect—
  "That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person be guilty of an offence under this Act who maybe present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in this Clause."
  He did not think that the speech which had been made by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) would tend to foster that kindly feeling between the Members for Ulster and the rest of the Irish Members, which some hon. Members seemed to think ought to exist.
  MR. GILLsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the clause. From their point of view there were two

  1457
  things required in Ireland. They had already full power to prevent meetings, whether they were proposed to be held in proclaimed districts or not. if they considered that they might lead to disorder. He himself thought that in those parts of Ireland which it was not necessary to proclaim, and which were, therefore, supposed to be inhabited by people who did nothing to injure the public safety, it was quite sufficient to have the power of stopping a meeting when it was convened, without subjecting the people who attended it to punishment. By accepting the Amendment, the Government would not put themselves in a worse position than they were now occupying, except that they would not have the power of subjecting people in the quiet parts of the country, such as Ulster, to severe punishment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think that the Amendment would effect the object of its supporters. Districts only could be proclaimed when crime and outrage were prevalent in them, and it was, therefore, desirable that the proclaimed districts should be as few as possible. The Government did not wish to bring down on a whole district a sentence which it did not deserve; they only wished by the clause to be able to stop meetings, the holding of which would be dangerous in an unhealthy condition of things.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the 20th clause of the Bill, which had just been alluded to, was not at all pertinent to his Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, there were some Members who, although they did not intend to vote for the Amendment, would vote against the clause. For his own part, he thought the Amendment would make the clause logically worse than it was at present, and, therefore, he should not vote for it. The Amendment was introduced by the hon. Member for Louth, on the distinct ground that meetings should not be prohibited except in proclaimed districts, and several hon. Members opposite had also spoken in the same sense.
  MR. CALLAN: I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, in the Province of Ulster the Government of the Lord Lieutenant had repeatedly and with good effect proclaimed meetings
  1458
  announced to be held on the 12th of July. That power had always been exercised with the approbation of the majority of Irish Members. But if this Amendment were accepted, the Lord Lieutenant must previously proclaim the Province of Ulster, or some portion of it in which the meetings were to be held. For these reasons he felt it his duty to vote against the Amendment.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he should vote in favour of the Amendment and against the clause; but, in saying that, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to endorse the opinions of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had spoken of the Amendment as if the adoption of it would draw down upon a district all the penalties of the general proclamation under the 20th clause of the Bill. But in that they were entirely mistaken; and had they read the clause attentively they would have arrived at a different opinion, at the same time saving themselves from the strictures of the hon. Member for Louth. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth was—
  "That it shall not be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to order, under the provisions of this Act, any such prohibition of a meeting, nor shall any person be guilty of an offence under this Act who may be present at a meeting so prohibited, unless the Lord Lieutenant shall, by proclamation previously made, declare the county, or the district of the county in which the meeting is to be held is in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers of this Clause enacted."
  It would be seen from this that the Amendment made a provision for special proclamation in the case of prohibition of meetings. According to the Bill as it stood, the Lord Lieutenant had neither political, legal, nor Constitutional responsibility, and it depended entirely upon himself whether or no he had any moral responsibility. Irish Members did not yield in matters which affected the liberties of the people of Ireland to the conscience of any man, although he would not deny that the Lord Lieutenant had as much conscientiousness as anybody else. But this clause was conferring an utterly irresponsible power, and the only way of preventing that power being abused was to surround it with restrictions. This was the well-known Constitutional method of pre-

  1459
  venting the abuse of such powers. Therefore, as the Lord Lieutenant would still retain the power of prohibition in the case of public meetings, he saw no harm in the adoption of the Amendment, and should vote for it accordingly.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had scarcely grasped the meaning of the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member said the Government had from time to time, with beneficial effect, proclaimed Orange meetings in Ulster, andhehad argued as if that power would in future be interfered with. But that was not at all the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth. The power of prohibition, referred to by the hon. Member for Galway as having existed before, would continue to exist if the Amendment were adopted. The clause proposed to inflict a special punishment upon persons who did not stay away from a meeting that was likely to lead to an infringement of order; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth did not affect the principle of the clause, directly or indirectly. But the Government had no pretence whatever for asking for the powers under the clause unless there was disturbance in the district. When any part of Ireland was peaceable, the reasons which the Government might otherwise have for the prohibition of public meetings was taken away, and they had no excuse for interference by means of a Bill of this kind. As the hon. Member for Louth had pointed out, the special proclamation to which he referred had only reference to this particular clause, and to no other part of the Bill whatever; and he said that the sole object of the Amendment was to throw another obstacle in the way of arbitrary action on the part of the Government. Irish Members complained not only of the arbitrary but the sudden action of the Government in Ireland— they complained of the power which the clause would give of springing notices of prohibition on the people, and so bringing about conflicts between the people and the authorities. If a district were in a disturbed condition, there was, perhaps, reason for suppressing meetings; but when it was peaceable there was no necessity or justification for such a course, unless, as some were inclined to do, the object was to destroy the
  1460
  right of public meeting in Ireland altogether. He regarded the Amendment as extremely fair and reasonable; and he did not see how the hon. Members for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) and Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could object to it on the grounds stated by them, be-cause the clause would still make it competent to the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit meetings of Orangemen on the 12th of July, for which great preparations might have been made, and these Orangemen, having made arrangements for their meeting, would be liable to be put in prison for insisting on exercising their Common Law right to hold a meeting which was prohibited simply by the will of the Lord Lieutenant. He and his hon. Friends had always insisted on the right of public meeting in the case of Orangemen; and he had himself been a supporter of Mr. Johnson, the former Member for County Down, when he was prosecuted for having taken part in an Orange procession. Not only did he sympathize with him, but he became a subscriber to the fund created for the purpose of indemnifying him for the inconvenience suffered in his endeavours to insist on the right of public meeting in Ireland. He repeated that he and his hon. Friends were always in favour of the right of public meeting, either in Ulster or anywhere else, although they were not in favour of bands and banners, and things calculated to irritate the feelings of persons who held different views from those which the meetings in question represented. He maintained that the arguments of the hon. Members opposite to whom he had referred were quite inapplicable to the Amendment, which he should feel it his duty to support.
  MR. CALLANsaid, notwithstanding the argument of the Attorney General, his Amendment had no reference whatever to the 20th clause of the Bill. The 20th clause did not authorize the Lord Lieutenant to act of his own motion, but with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland; whereas his Amendment reserved action to the Lord Lieutenant without the intervention of the Privy Council. That was a most material point. But there was a still more material difference. The 20th clause said that—
  "The Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, may

  1461
  from time to time, when it appears to him necessary for the prevention of crime and outrage, by proclamation declare the provisions of this Act which relate to proclaimed districts to he in force."
  But his Amendment was specific and not general in its terms, for it did not authorize the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim a district; it only authorized him to suppress meetings within it when, by previous proclamation, he had declared the district to be in such a state of disturbance as to require the application of the provisions and powers in the clause enacted. It would be seen from this that his Amendment did not authorize the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim a district for the purposes of this Act, but for the purpose of enabling him to suppress illegal meetings within it.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he should feel it his duty to vote both against the clause and the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 27; Noes 266: Majority 239.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the clause. He believed the Committee would agree with him that there ought not to be any increase of the power of the Executive in Ireland, or the creation of any new offence, unless on the clearly proved necessities of the case. That opinion, he believed, would be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Now, he asked, did that proved necessity exist for the present clause? The clause enabled the Lord Lieutenant, in such cases where he came to the conclusion, on the information supplied to him, that any meeting was likely to prove dangerous to the public peace or the public safety, peremptorily, arbitrarily, and summarily to prohibit that meeting. But the clause did more than that; it made it an offence for a person knowingly to attend any such meeting. There was no such offence known to the law at the present time. It was important to consider the state of things in which this proposal was brought forward, and the state of things to which it was supposed that the clause would be applied. He asked hon. Members, in any part of the House,
  1462
  what were the meetings in Ireland which the existing powers of the law had been found insufficient in the interest of peace and safety in Ireland to cope with? Had any such occasion arisen, or in what place had it been found that the powers with which the Executive were already armed were inadequate to the purpose of the clause? He ventured to say, whatever hon. Members might think or express to the contrary of the conduct of the Irish people in particular districts, that there was one remarkable feature in the whole behaviour of the people of Ireland with regard to this question of public meeting, and that was, that whenever the Executive had thought it right to intervene and prevent a meeting up to the present time, on the sworn information that it was dangerous to the public peace, the greatest alacrity had been shown in yielding obedience to the law. Again, he asked, where was the proved necessity for that extraordinary power proposed by the clause to be conferred on the Lord Lieutenant? He said there was none. He would now inquire what was the existing law on this subject, and in doing so anything he might say would, of course, be subject to correction. The law, as he understood, was that a meeting, however peaceable it might be in itself, and however little it might tend to disturb the public peace, was in itself unlawful if the object it aimed at, or the means by which it sought to attain them, were unlawful; and the Lord Lieutenant had the right to invoke to the aid of the Executive the power of the law to put it down. Further, if the meeting, perfectly legal in itself, having a legal object, and professing to carry out that object by legal means, were held under circumstances which were shown upon sworn information to be dangerous to the public peace, the Lord Lieutenant had power to interfere and disperse the meeting. And the law further provided that if, upon a proclamation of that kind being made, there was reason to apprehend a breach of the peace, and the people did not disperse, then, by the reading of the Riot Act—which, by the way, gave larger powers than was proposed in this clause—any person who continued to take part in the meeting, would be subject to the penalty of the law, and could be dealt with accordingly. He was anxious to know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home

  1463
  Secretary would meet these arguments. Where, he asked, was there a case in which it had been found that these provisions of the law, as they existed, were not adequate to the necessities of the case, or where had it been found that the penalty attached by the existing law was inadequate to the offences committed? He said, if such things had occurred, they should be proved to have taken place. But no instance was forthcoming; and, therefore, he affirmed that the only basis on which the clause could safely rest, and the sanction of the Committee be given to it, could not be made out to exist. It would be said that the powers which the Executive possessed were rather vague and undefined. He met that by saying that, in his opinion, there was no harm in leaving undefined the powers of the Executive for dealing with the great Constitutional right of public meeting; andheappealed to hon. Members representing other than Irish Constituencies, to ask themselves how they would like to have applied in England this clause, and what the people of England would say if it were attempted by hon. Members opposite to effect this grave alteration of the right of public meeting in this country? The consequences of a clause of this kind were far-reaching and dangerous. These were not only the mere act of putting down public meetings, but the effect which the clause would have upon the public mind in making men afraid to discuss what they felt to be their grievances in the light of day. He feared it would be found that by preventing men in the open, deliberate, and full expression of their views, a greater evil would be created, because the matters so removed from open discussion would find their expression in the baneful organizations which it was now sought to put down. He asked the Committee to reject the clause, because it was unnecessary, because no case had been made out for it, and because it was likely to be dangerous in its consequences.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he yielded to no Member of the House in the desire to support Her Majesty's Government in legislation — severe and stringent legislation—for the purpose of putting clown crime, outrage, and intimidation in Ireland. But he could not find, and he had not heard, in the whole course of this discussion, any reason drawn, either
  1464
  from principle or expediency, which could justify him in voting for a clause which practically suppressed the right of public meeting in Ireland. In times of great political excitement, whether in Ireland, in England, or on the Continent, there was always a certain amount of what he might call political gas generated, and there were two ways of dealing with it. They might allow it to escape when the pressure was harmless, or they could confine it until the pressure became irresistible, and resulted, as was generally the case, in a dangerous explosion. The people of England were in the habit of saying to Continental Governments that it was the wisest and safest thing to allow the freest possible expression of public opinion, and to allow the acts of the Executive Government to be openly criticized. He held there was less danger in doing that now than in proceeding by the measures which this clause contemplated, and which, he believed, would have the result which his hon. and learned Friend had pointed out. The strength of a political principle was like the seaworthiness of a ship—it was to be tested by the way it would stand bad weather. Any ship would behave well in fine weather; but a political principle which would not bear the test of grave political crises was not a sound political principle. They had always contended that Constitutional government, so far from being endangered, was rather strengthened by the free expression of public opinion. He looked upon this matter from a political point of view, because he regarded the clause as opposing political agitation in one of Her Majesty's Three Kingdoms. It had been said by the Prime Minister that "crime dogged the steps of the public meetings of the Land League." He would admit, for the sake of argument, that outrage had followed public meetings of the Land League in Ireland. But by this Bill it was provided that if a man by speech incited to the commission of outrage, he could be brought before the magistrates and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He said the Government could not have a better means of dealing with intimidation that might be attempted by public meeting. There was not a single consequence which either the Chief Secretary or the Secretary for the Home Department had pointed out as likely to follow from

  1465
  inflammatory public meetings which could not be fully and completely dealt with under the other clauses of the Bill. But the Chief Secretary said that this measure would be wisely administered. He laid great stress on the administration of the Act. Now, he (Mr. Fowler) had as much confidence as any man in the fair and impartial administration of Lord Spencer and his right hon. Friend. He did not know where at that moment two more competent persons could be found to fill the posts which they occupied; but he could not accept it as any justification of a bad law that it would be wisely or temperately administered. But he could perceive another danger resulting from the actual administration of this Bill. The Committee would remember that they had a far stronger power than was now proposed in the Riot Act for dealing with these meetings. Assuming this clause to be put in force, the men who were the real promoters of the meetings, who went there to say the things which the Government deprecated, were not the persons who would come within the sweep of the Bill. It was always those unfortunate persons who were innocently attending the meetings who became the victims and sufferers. The result of this would be that the very people who now supported the enactment of the clause would be most indignant with the natural results of their own legislation. What had happened in this country? It was almost half-a-century since what was described as the Peterloo massacre took place in this country, an event which Manchester had never forgotten nor forgiven. To put this clause in force would be to land the Government in Ireland in greater difficulty than it was in at present. They were engaged in passing a measure which would enable the Irish Executive to deal with every development of crime, and he contended that there was no necessity to deal also with the right of public meeting in Ireland, which was the safety valve for the expression of the political opinions of an excited people. By all means let the people of Ireland criticize the action of the Government. No doubt, they would not do that very pleasantly. Strong language would be applied, no doubt, to the policy of the Government; but this would do no harm in itself, nor would it do harm to the Government of Lord Spencer. On
  1466
  the contrary, he thought that this criticism would do the Government some good, even though it were expressed in unwise, objectionable, or intemperate words. He felt it his duty to vote against the clause, because he believed that the suppression of the right of public meeting would produce far greater evils than it was intended to prevent.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was with very great regret that the Government felt bound to dissent from the view taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. With every respect for his hon. Friend, he thought the views he had expressed were somewhat to be regretted at that moment, because, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), it was support of this character which encouraged hon. Members opposite to go back to the principles of the Bill. Now, he contended that this question could not be solved by general argument upon the value of public meetings. Everyone knew the value of public meetings, just as they knew the value of trial by jury; but the Committee, by passing the 1st clause of the Bill, had suspended trial by jury in Ireland, so far as the offences named in the Bill were concerned. The same kind of common-places could always be uttered, both on the value of trial by jury, and on the value of public meetings. They were, however, common-places against the second reading of the Bill, and did not affect the question at issue; and although the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had directed his remarks against the clause itself, his speech was really against every kind of legislation for the suppression of public meetings. He had been struck particularly by one remark of his hon. Friend, who said for the sake of argument he would admit that these public meetings had led to outrage and intimidation in the past, but that there was no necessity for further interference, inasmuch as the Government already possessed machinery for putting down outrage and intimidation. The position taken up by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was very like that of a man who supplied himself with an excellent fire-engine, and then concluded there was no use in taking any further precaution against his house being set on fire. That was exactly the

  1467
  case with regard to the hon. Member's objection to this clause. Because the Government could put down intimidation, there fore they were not to interfere with public meeting's which were likely to lead to intimidation, and it was upon that ground that the Committee were asked to reject the clause. His hon. Friend had referred to the evils which might arise from putting down public meetings by force, and had alluded to Peterloo by way of illustration; but it was the Peterloo system which was in force in Ireland under the existing law. It was because the Government could now suppress meetings dangerous to the public peace only by an exhibition of force that the present clause was proposed. The object of the clause was, by inflicting penalties, to prevent such disasters as his hon. Friend had referred to. Thus the clause would supply the means of putting down meetings avowedly held for the purpose of "Boycotting" and punishing those who persisted in attending them in spite of their prohibition; and, therefore, he desired it to be understood that any Gentleman voting against the clause would vote against giving the Government the power of putting down "Boycotting." The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had referred to Whig principles. He trusted he had as much respect for those principles as his hon. Friend. He confessed that he was a Whig, and he was ready to act as the great Whigs had done in old times, who never allowed themselves to be seduced by commonplace phrases when great political dangers were to be dealt with. The first fruit of the Reform Bill was the bringing in of the Act of 1833. That Act was brought in by men who fought for their principles, and for 50 years sacrificed every hope of political advantage. They did not consider themselves for one moment when they found the country in danger, but applied the remedies which they and everyone else knew to be necessary. These were the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to take such steps as they believed would be sufficient for the safety of the country. These were the reasons which induced the Irish Government under Lord Spencer to declare that, in their opinion, the country would not be safe without this clause, and to state that, in their opinion, this unlimited right of public meet-
  1468
  ing had been one of the main causes of the present condition of Ireland, and of the crime and outrage which prevailed there. It was for these reasons, and for these reasons alone, that the Government now asked the House of Commons to support them in this clause. They were told that this Act of Coercion would not produce the results which the Government expected from it. Yes—the Government having proposed a Bill which they considered likely to achieve the results they desired, the endeavour was then made to weaken it and cut it down, so as to bring about the failure that was prophesied. He appealed to hon. Members to allow the clause to pass.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, not-with standing the great ability with which views opposite to his own had been supported, he was still of opinion that, without this clause, very great difficulties would be thrown in the way of the Executive Government in Ireland. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had spoken of outrages being caused by the language used at public meetings in Ireland; nevertheless, he did not seem to think that the Government should be placed in possession of powers sufficient for the prevention of public meetings in the manner proposed by the clause. The hon. Gentleman, however, got to somewhat safer ground when he said that the advice which was tendered to Foreign Governments with regard to matters kindred to the subject now before the Committee, would be inconsistent when the Government of the country became a party to the clause under discussion. But he (Mr. Lowther) thought the best way to avoid such inconsistency was very easily discoverable— it was to discontinue giving advice unsought to Foreign Governments, who were certainly as competent as our own to manage their affairs. It was to be regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who, he was bound to say, had, up to the present time, discharged his duty with great firmness, should have been called away for a moment upon public business, because, during his absence, an Amendment of importance had been under discussion, and was afterwards accepted by one of his Colleagues. He believed that Amendment would prove very injurious to the clause itself, inasmuch as it provided that two or more

  1469
  Justices should attend at the place where they had reason to believe a meeting was to be held.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That Amendment was accepted at my special instance.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had not stated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved the Amendment accepted by his Colleague; he had simply expressed his regret at the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the Amendment was under discussion, which fact precluded the right hon. and learned Gentleman from hearing the strong arguments which were forthcoming against the change introduced into the Bill. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought that what had taken place was illustrative of the great disadvantage of a measure of this kind being in the hands of a Member of the Government, who could not possibly have an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the opinions of the authorities in Ireland with regard to particular Amendments proposed to the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the experience which it it was his (Mr. J. Lowther's) misfortune to have of the difficulty of contending with a movement of the kind now going on in Ireland, he would have known that the Amendment that had been accepted by his Colleague would make the clause practically unworkable. The Amendment made it necessary, as he had already pointed out, for two or more Justices to attend at the place appointed for the meeting. The general practice would be found to be that a large number of meetings would be simultaneously called in the same district. That was the practice when he was a Member of the Irish Executive, and he had known several instances of the kind. The plan would be to call meetings in almost every village throughout the district for one particular day. The persons who promoted these meetings would have a pretty good idea which meeting or meetings the authorities took especial precautions to deal with, and they would probably select a rendezvous not immediately under the eyes of the authorities. The effect of this was that, while the Justices were engaged elsewhere, the promoters of the meeting took the precaution to repair to a spot not far off, and there the meeting took
  1470
  place. His objection to the Amendment was founded upon experience, and the circumstances he had referred to were not unlikely to occur in the future. At the risk of detaining the Committee, he felt it his duty to call attention to this subject, in the hope that, between that time and the Report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would consult some practical authority on Irish affairs, who had had experience of the way in which public meetings in Ireland were conducted, and that he would consent either to the omission of the Amendment, or to so far modifying it as to remove some of the practical objections he had indicated.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Home Secretary had complained of the length of the discussion on the clause before the Committee, and, at the same time, had congratulated himself that he was an old Whig. If that was so, he ought to have recollected that the founders of the modern Whig Party— Mr. Fox, Mr. Whitbread, and others— spent a very much longer time in discussing a similar clause in a Bill that applied to England. They fought against the suspension of the right of public meeting with more persistency than the hon. Gentlemen opposite had fought against that clause, and their fighting was accounted by their Party as an honour. The Homo Secretary had twitted the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with having indulged in Liberal commonplaces. It might be retorted upon him that he had indulged in despotic common-places, for the substance and the spirit of his speech were just such as would have been fitting in the mouth of the Minister of an unchecked Tyrant. It was the sort of speech that any Minister of Louis Bonaparte would have made when trampling out the liberties of the people by a military force. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to Lord Grey and to the Government of 1833. It was an unhappy reference. Lord Grey came into power upon a wave of popular enthusiasm and with a large majority at his back. He carried an Irish Coercion Bill, which was described by the late Lord Lytton as consisting of two sections—a whiff of grape-shot, and the suspension of trial by jury. The Bill was as complete, as disastrous,

  1471
  as hideous a failure as the Coercion Bill of last year had been. Lord Grey and his Colleagues—as the present Administration were now doing—attempted a second Coercion Bill; but Lord Althorp, a statesman that the Home Secretary had often quoted during these debates, objected to the measure. The negotiations that took place between him, Mr. Littleton, and Mr. O'Connell, ended in the defeat of the Government and the abandonment of the Bill. It was not at all improbable that as Irish coercion had killed Lord Grey's Government—with all its popularity and its power—Irish coercion would kill the present Administration also. After the retirement of Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne initiated a better policy, and, under his mild administration and without coercion, Ireland enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity such as had seldom fallen to her lot since the Union. This much for the Home Secretary's historical allusions. As for the clause before the House, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dandalk (Sir Charles Russell) and his Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had stated clearly, ably, and eloquently all that was necessary to be said. It only remained for him to say "ditto" to their speeches. Their contention was unanswerable. No one denied that the Government ought to have the power to suppress meetings that were likely to be dangerous to the peace of the country and the stability of the State. Everyone admitted that all Governments ought to have such a power, and to suppose that any Government had not such a power would be to suppose that it could not justify its existence. The most loosely-organized Republic in South America possessed the right of putting clown riotous and tumultuous assemblies that threatened its existence. And our Government had exercised a like power in Ireland repeatedly. More than 100 public meetings had been suppressed within the last 12 months by the Lord Lieutenant, and the strongest argument against the clause was the fact that the suppression of not one of these meetings had led to the slightest disorder. No one had been arrested, the peace had not been broken, and the people had quietly and promptly obeyed even the arbitrary and, in some instances, uncalled-for exercise of authority by the
  1472
  Viceroy. The clause, therefore, was useless. But while the Government did not want the power they were now getting, the fact of their getting it would be a source of exasperation and annoyance. The Home Secretary had said that these meetings generated steam. That was quite true; but the material for making the steam existed, or it could not be generated, and the meetings afforded an opportunity for its evaporation. But the Government, instead of adopting the natural and reasonable process of getting quit of the steam, were going to bottle it up and await the results, however serious they might be. English. Members complained of the length of the discussion; but he would like to know how they would have argued against, and how strenuously they would have resisted, any attempt to deprive them of the right of public meeting. There was no Party in the State that utilized public meetings more than the Liberal Party did. They were the breath of their political nostrils. And yet the idolizers of public meetings in this country were now about to suppress them in Ireland. It was to the lasting discredit of the present Administration that they were bringing in a Bill that struck at the foundations of all the principles their Party professed. They had suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and they were now abolishing trial by jury. They were suppressing the right of public meeting, and they meant to take away the liberty of the Press. And they would have men who valued principles more than Party to sit still and allow these things to be done quietly, and without protest. If they conceived that they would be permitted to enforce their high-handed authority in Ireland without resistance, they were mistaken. He knew, of course, the clause would be carried. Only an insignificant minority would vote against it. But the necessity for its opponents making their protest was none the less urgent because they were few.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Home Secretary had told them a hundred times of the position in which the Government were placed. But in what position were the Government placed during the delivery of the speech in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made attacks on the sacred principle of popular liberty? The speech of the right hon.

  1473
  and learned Gentleman had been met by cheers; but these came only from the Tory quarter of the House. It appeared to him a most curious circumstance that a man who described himself as a Whig of the old times should be placed by the Government in charge of a Bill for the suppression of the liberties of the Irish people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the case of Earl Grey, and when he desired to remind the Committee of the achievements of the Whig Party, he spoke of the infamous Coercion Bill of 1833, a Bill which was not only a failure, but a blunder, and which was the cause of the expulsion of Earl Grey from power. He could not congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the happiness of his metaphors. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that those who were opposed to this clause were in the position of a person who thought it was no longer necessary to take precautions against fire because he was in the possession of a fire-engine; but he would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's method of dealing with Irish affairs was that, so to speak, of bringing up the fire-engine amidst hurry and noise to a house that was not on fire at all. Nor could he congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his reply to what he designated the commonplaces of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who was opposed to the clause before the Committee. He did not think that the treatment accorded to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would have been approved of by the Prime Minister; and he would only observe upon this point that the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was likely to lead to the very opposite results to those which he desired. There was no law which struck so large, so wide, so fatal, and so dangerous a blow at the great principle of public freedom as this law would. He had said that the right of public meeting was a sacred link between the convictions of the private individual and the opinions and acts of the Legislature. If the right of public meeting in England was so sacred that no Ministry dare propose to abolish it, was it not ten times more valuable and more essential in the case of Ireland? No country so much needed the right of public meeting as a country
  1474
  without a Parliament of its own. The people of England had a Parliament of their own, and even if the right of public meeting were taken away, the English people would still have in that House some protection against acts of despotism; but what protection had the Irish people? They had no Parliament of their own, and the voices of their Representatives in that House were disregarded, and their votes had no influence whatever upon the course of legislation. It was now proposed to take away the last safeguard they possessed— the right of public meeting. What case had been made out by the Government for this clause? The Home Secretary once more returned to the futile statement that this clause was necessary to prevent "Boycotting" meetings. Let him (Mr. Sexton) emphasize the undeniable fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, during the past year, had prohibited about 100 meetings in various parts of Ireland, meetings called for various purposes, some of them for the mere discussion of the agrarian questions. In not one single case had a meeting been held when it had been prohibited; but the leaders of the people had invariably advised the crowds to disperse; there had never been any occasion to resort to brute force, and in no case had public inconvenience ensued. Why, in the face of such a state of facts, had this most wanton and oppressive clause been inserted in the Bill? What was the theory of the Government in Ireland in respect to "Boycotting?" They had heard from the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) that "Boycotting" never received an effective sanction except by means of outrage. If that were so, why were not the present powers of the Lord Lieutenant sufficient? He had prohibited meetings upon two grounds; he had either apprehended a breach of the peace, or he had apprehended danger to some person living in the neighbourhood. If the Government were of opinion that "Boycotting" necessarily led to outrage, a theory which he rejected, if they considered that "Boycotting" meetings were dangerous to the public peace, why not prohibit them under their present powers? He believed they could prohibit a "Boycotting" meeting under the powers which now existed. There never was a time in the history of

  1475
  Ireland when the right of public meeting was so essential to the people. They had many great questions to consider; but he did not imagine that, under this Bill, it would be possible to hold any public meeting for the discussion of any political question. Could a meeting be held to consider the question of county government? Certainly not; it would excite ill-feeling amongst the Grand Juries of the country, and it would be considered as dangerous to the public safety. Could the Irish people hold a meeting in favour of the further development of the franchise? Certainly not, for such a meeting would create ill-feeling and hatred in the minds of those people who thought that the representation of Ireland in that House should be upon a much larger principle than it was at present. If the people held meetings to consider the proceedings of the Land Commissioners, they would be held liable to punishment under this clause, because the meeting would be considered dangerous to the public peace. Could the people hold meetings to discuss a question which, before very long, would have to be settled in that Parliament—the question of the inalienable right of the Irish people to their legislative independence? No political meetings would be possible under the extreme and extravagant powers which it was now proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant. His Excellency might prohibit any meeting merely upon bare suspicion; in fact, all the liberties of the Irish people were to be placed in the hands of a single man. Of all the deplorable mistakes and blunders which had been made in that House in regard to Ireland, the deplorable blunder contained in this Bill was the greatest. In the Preamble of the Bill it was stated that—
  "By reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime."
  He maintained that the ordinary law was quite sufficient, if wisely and properly used, for the suppression and prevention of crime. This Bill would not touch crime; at least, this clause would certainly not touch crime; it would let criminals go, and its only effect would be to gag honest men and suppress public opinion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 208; Noes 65: Majority 143.

  AYES.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Evans, T. W.

  Alexander, Colonel

  Ewing, A. O.

  Allen, H. G.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Allsopp, C.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Armitage, B.

  Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Ferguson, R.

  Asher, A.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Finch, G. H.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Balfour, J. S.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Fort, R.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Brett, R. B.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Brinton, J.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Brown, A. H.

  Grantham, W.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Greene, E.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Burrell, Sir W. W.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Buxton, F. W.

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

  Campbell, J. A.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Campbell- Bannerman, H.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Garden, Sir R. W.

  Heneage, E.

  Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Hicks, E.

  Chaine, J.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Hill, T. R,

  Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Holms, J.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Holms, W.

  Corry, J. P.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Cotes, C. C.

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

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Howard, E. S.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Howard, G. J,

  Cowan, J.

  James, Sir H.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Jardine, R.

  Creyke, R.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Johnson, rt. hon. W. M.

  Cropper, J.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H,

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Currie, Sir D.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Davey, H.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Davies, R.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Legh, W. J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Loder, R.

  Dodds, J.

  Long, W. H.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Lymington, Viscount

  1477

  M'Arthur, A.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Schreiber, C.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Scott, M. D.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Shield, H

  Matheson, Sir A.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Smith, A.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Smith, E.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Monk, C. J.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Morley, S.

  Stewart, J.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Talbot, C. E. M.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Murray, C. J.

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

  Noel, E.

  Tennant, C.

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Thomson, H.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Thornhill, T.

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Vivian, A. P.

  Paget, T. T.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Parker, C. S.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Pease, A.

  Warton, C. N.

  Peel, A. W.

  Watkin, Sir E. W,

  Percy, Lord A.

  Waugh, E.

  Philips, R. N.

  Whitbread, S.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Whitley, E.

  Porter, A. M.

  Wiggin, H.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Pulley, J.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Ramsay, J.

  Wilson, I.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Rankin, J.

  Wodehouse, E. E.

  Rathbone, W.

  Woodall, W.

  Reid, R. T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Repton, G. W.

  Richardson, T.

  TELLERS.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Grosvenor, Lord E.

  Round, J.

  Kensington, Lord

  NOES.

  Anderson, G.

  Lea, T.

  Arnold, A.

  Leake, E.

  Barran, J.

  Leamy, E.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Lee, H.

  Blake, J. A.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Bryce, J.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Burt, T.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Byrne, G. M.

  M'Minnies, J. G.

  Caine, W. S.

  Martin, P.

  Callan, P.

  Marum, E. M.

  Colthurst, Col. D. La T.

  Metge, R, H.

  Commins, A.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Morley, A.

  Cowen, J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Dickson, T. A.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Errington, G.

  Findlater, W.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Fowler, H. H.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Fry, T.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Gill, H. J.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Givan, J.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Grant, A.

  Power, E.

  Henry, M.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Lalor, R.

  Richard, H,

  1478

  Rylands, P.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Samuelson, H.

  Webster, J.

  Sexton, T.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Shaw, W.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Sheil, E.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  TELLERS.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Labouchere, H.

  Synan, E. J.

  Russell, C.

  And it being ton minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
  Clause 8 (Arrest of persons found at night under suspicious circumstances).
  COLONEL NOLANmoved, in page 4, line 19, after "person," to insert "other than a magistrate or duly qualified medical practitioner or a clergyman." He said that this Amendment was a very simple one. His chief object was to exempt a medical practitioner and clergyman from the odious provisions of this clause. Medical gentlemen and clergymen—especially clergymen of the Catholic Church—had very often to visit sick people at night. Other clergymen, of course, than those belonging to the Catholic Church also visited sick people at night; but more importance was attached to the fact of the clergymen of the Catholic Church being with a sick man at his last moments than was possibly the case with many other Churches. The Amendment, however, would apply to clergymen of every denomination. The Committee would be told that this clause would be administered by police officers, who, as a rule, had very great respect for the doctor and the clergyman. It must, however, be remembered that police constables were generally anxious to assert their authority; and he had no doubt that, in their wish to show their zeal, they would not scruple to arrest a doctor or a priest, no matter what business might have called him out at night. There were very fair grounds for exempting these persons from the operation of this clause; and, therefore, he moved the Amendment that stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 19, after the word "person," to insert the words "other than a magistrate or

  1479
  duly qualified medical practitioner or a clergyman."— [Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it was not intended that this Act should apply to any such persons as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had mentioned, nor would such persons come under the words of the clause. A doctor was not out at night under suspicious circumstances at all, neither was a clergyman. He might add that the words "duly qualified practitioner" were words that might cause some difficulty. An homœo-pathist might be out at night, and he might claim to be a duly qualified practitioner and claim exemption. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press the Amendment, which pointed to a class of people who, more than any other, were exempt from suspicion.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the people of Ireland knew what suspicious circumstances were considered to be, and they had good reason to know the character of the men who were to suspect the people. The policemen of Ireland had not been particular who they had arrested under the Coercion Bill now in force. Three solicitors and the mayor of one city had been arrested. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to think that the persons mentioned in the Amendment were the class least likely to be suspected; but no one could possibly know who the Irish Constabulary would regard as suspicious people. The whole purpose of the Irish Constabulary seemed to be to harass and annoy the people of the country as much as they possibly could. Hon. Members who lived in England, and who had got their ideas of the Irish policeman from The Illustrated London News, could have no conception of the courses to which the Irish police resorted to harass and annoy every person who came in their way. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) knew something about the Irish police, for, eight or nine years ago, he denounced them as a body. The right hon. Gentleman then said that at all times the Irish police were found with their arms, and guns, and sabres, as if Ireland was a foreign country taken by assault. He could not see what earthly reason the
  1480
  Home Secretary could have for refusing to insert these words. What contention need there be between the Government and Gentlemen on that side of the House on this point. If the Amendment was not accepted by the Government, it would only exemplify the unyielding character of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he thought it would be an insult to the clergymen and medical practitioners to put in this special exemption on their behalf. He entirely disagreed with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in his ideas as to the police of Ireland, for he know that if there was any class of society for whom the police had more respect than another, they were the clergymen, the doctors, and the magistrates; and it was really absurd that these classes should be specially exempted from this clause. He hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment, but leave the administration of the clause to the good sense of the police.
  MR. DILLONsaid, it was a strange thing, if the contention of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson) was correct, that there were priests and doctors arrested under the Coercion Act of last Session. He believed that one doctor was imprisoned at the present moment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was evident the Government wished to have power to harass every class of the people. Nothing could be more easy than for a policeman to say that a particular doctor was a suspicious character. If a policeman took it into his head to haul a doctor before a magistrate, he would be entitled to do so, and not the smallest censure would be cast upon him for so doing, as the clause gave him special authority for that purpose. It was perfectly proper that this Amendment should be agreed to. Their experience under the Coercion Act of last Session was that the Government and the late Chief Secretary had as much respect for doctors and clergymen as they had for any other class of society in Ireland. They knew, too, that the Attorney General for Ireland defended instead of prosecuting a policeman against whom a coroner's jury had returned a verdict of "Wilful murder." In fact, the Government and their thick-and-thin supporters, of whom the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson) was

  1481
  one, never seemed to consider that a policeman could do wrong.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONremarked, that the hon. Member for Cavan(Mr. Biggar) had called him a thick-and-thin supporter of the Government. He believed that in the last division he voted with the hon. Member opposite against the 7th clause of the Bill. In this matter, however, he could not see why, if clergymen and doctors were to be exempted, the same consideration should not be extended to merchants and Members of Parliament.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he thought it would be unreasonable to arrest men on the spot who were perfectly well known to the police in the district. He could not see why men well known to the police, and living in the neighbourhood, could not be brought up for examination the day afterwards, instead of being subjected to the ignominy of summary arrest.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) would simply destroy the whole of the clause. This clause was evidently intended to relate to the people of the district, for the next clause dealt with strangers. He should certainly claim the vote of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) against the clause.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he attached some importance to the Amendment. Clergymen and medical practitioners were bound to be out at night, and it would be a most unpleasant and undignified thing if, on account of his Amendment being rejected, any of them were subjected to the indignity of arrest at the hands of a common policeman. The Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) would be, he admitted, far preferable to his own; and if the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend he should be glad to withdraw his. In the event of his hon. Friend's Amendment not being acceptable to the Government, he thought his own might reasonably be adopted. He had had experience of the exercise of similar arbitrary powers in Warsaw, and he was sure the Government had no intention of resorting to such despotism as prevailed in Poland.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his experi-
  1482
  ences in Warsaw; but this was a clause which was proposed on account of his experiences very much nearer home than Poland. They had now come to the end of the clauses on which there must be a very great amount of doubt as to whether they were directed against crime; and they had now come to the beginning of those clauses on which the Irish Government relied in order to repress those terrible murders which were directed against all classes in the country, and especially against the hardworking and respectable classes. These clauses were clauses, the effect of which had already been tried, and had proved to be efficient. They had not only proved to be efficient against crime, but they had also been proved to be without terror to respectable persons. A similar clause to the one upon which they were now entering was in force between 1870 and 1875. In the year 1870, 142 persons were arrested under the clause, and 18 were punished. In the year 1871, 90 were arrested; in the next year, 81; then the number fell down to 44 and 36, and in the year 1875, by which time the clause had ceased to be needed, because it had done its work, and during all that time no clergyman or doctor, as far as had been brought to his knowledge, complained of his having been arrested. There was only one test for exemption from the operation of this clause, and that was the test that people should be respectable, hard-working citizens, who were out at night on their their lawful business. The Government trusted the constables and magistrates to attend to the peace and order of the country. They did rely on the constables and magistrates, and it was on account of that reliance—a reliance which was well-founded—that they introduced this clause in the Bill. They believed that the constables and magistrates now, as in the time from 1870 to 1875, would be the very last people who would interfere with a man who was out of his house at night on his legitimate business.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he had some experience of the Act of 1870, and, as the constables were in a very peculiar position, and had an absolute discretion as to the arrest of persons under this clause, he thought that some direction or instruction should be given to them to guide them in the arrests they made.

  1483
  He had an Amendment on the Paper to that effect, andhesaw there several Amendments in the same direction. He hoped the Homo Secretary and the Chief Secretary would examine those Amendments, and see whether it would not be expedient to adopt some instructions or other to the constables. The power of absolute arrest was too great a one to confide to a man like an ordinary Irish constable.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he did not think the Committee had taken a sufficiently serious view of this Amendment. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had just cited an instance which did not apply to this case at all. The Act passed in 1870 was only directed against a certain class; and in no case was a man of professional standing implicated or in any way connected with the movement on foot at that time. That was not the case at the present moment, for, as he had already stated, three priests had been arrested under the Coercion Act of last year. Men who had held positions of trust under the Local Government Board in Ireland had been cast into Kilmainham under the Coercion Act, and five or six solicitors, practising in the Irish Courts, had also been imprisoned under the Act of last year. It was manifestly absurd to quote, as an instance, an Act under which no man of standing was arrested. The Chief Secretary made use of an argument upon which he (Mr. Dillon) was perfectly prepared to meet him. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they could not trust the magistrates and police in this matter, they could not trust the police or magistrates at all. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the working of this clause, he would place on the Table of the House a list of the men who had been denounced by the Irish Constabulary? He had received some private information as to the number of men of standing who were denounced by the constables and magistrates to Dublin Castle under the Coercion Act, and whom even the late Chief Secretary had refused to arrest. It must be said to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that he had refused to arrest 500 or 600 people who were denounced by the police and magistrates of Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are not now engaged on the clause as a whole. The question is, whether magistrates, and medical men, and clergymen shall be exempted from the operation of the clause.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was replying to an argument which had been used by the Chief Secretary himself. He had said he was prepared to trust to the discretion of the constables. He (Mr. Dillon") was endeavouring to show that that discretion was tried last year, with the result that a long list of men, in every class of life — professional men and others—had been returned to the Castle for arrest, on grounds which even the late Chief Secretary deemed to be insufficient. There were long lists of names of men denounced now on record in Dublin Castle, and which could be produced if the Chief Secretary chose to do so. He knew that the names of many men were to be found in such lists, and to whom arrest would be utter ruin. His point was this—that if this clause had been law, these men, instead of having their names sent up to Dublin Castle, would have been absolutely arrested. They would have been arrested, brought before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and kept in prison for some days, with all the disgrace which attached to ordinary imprisonment in the case of professional men. No one could imagine the nature of the injury that even temporary imprisonment would inflict upon a medical practitioner. He might have upon his books people in a most critical condition; people whose lives might be depending upon his attendance, and yet such a man could be struck down through the indiscretion or petty judgment of a simple policeman, who might be prompted, through malice, to arrest him. His argument in favour of the clause was really a fair and reasonable one. Two of the classes which were desired to be exempted were well - defined classes— doctors and clergymen were notoriously well known to the constables of their district. They were, as a rule, resident in the district; and even supposing they were out at night under suspicious circumstances, surely it would be sufficient for them to be summoned in the ordinary way. These men were notoriously persons of influence; and in a country district of Ireland there would be no

  1485
  difficulty in any constable recognizing whether he had got hold of a doctor or a priest. If this Amendment were accepted, a constable would know that he was not to arrest a medical practitioner or a priest under this clause; but if he had reason to suppose they were out at night under suspicious circumstances, he must serve a summons upon them to appear before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and not subject them to the injury and loss which might result from summary arrest.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it would, perhaps, be as well if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Amendment. Formerly, Acts of Parliament had been always directed against the poor; but this Act would operate against the poor and rich alike. He had not put down an Amendment exempting any respectable class of people from the operation of the clause, because he considered that the more they caused the respectable classes of Ireland to regard with contempt the present system of government the better it would be for all parties and purposes. He would, therefore, suggest that they should not amend this clause in any particular, but content themselves by simply entering their protest against it. It happened in Ireland that outside of the castles and mansions of the aristocracy and the barracks of the police and soldiers, the British Government had not got a single friend in the country. He thought it would be well to make these clauses as oppressive upon all classes of the country alike, so that the whole country might unite against the detestable alien rule to which they were subjected.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was a very good one from his point of view; but he must differ from his hon. Friend, because his object was to make the Act as little irksome as possible. Anyone who would read the Amendments which he (Colonel Nolan) had placed upon the Paper would see that they were all directed towards the improvement of the Act. He was decidedly of opinion that the classes of persons mentioned in his Amendment should be exempted; and, therefore, he thought it would be his duty to press his Amendment to a division. Of course, he was quite willing to withdraw it if the Government would hold out any
  1486
  hope that they would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperarv (Mr. Dillon).
  MR. SEXTONsaid he wished to say that what his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said with regard to the denunciation of the people under the Coercion Act of last year was quite correct. He knew that the Head Constable from the West of Ireland went up to the Castle and produced a list of 70 names, desiring that warrants should be issued in every case. Quite a sensation was caused at the Castle, and Lord Cowper himself thought that the list might be very reasonably reduced. The Head Constable replied that he could not reduce the list, whereupon he was dismissed, Lord Cowper saying it was quite impossible for him to arrest any of the persons. The Chief Secretary had said that the clause they had now before them was intended for the suppression of murder, and he proposed to justify this clauseby the fact that a similar clause was contained in the Act of 1870. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that under this clause in the Act of 1870 142 persons were arrested in that year, and that 18 persons were punished. What did those figures amount to? Why, that 124 persons were arrested, upon whom no punishment was inflicted; in other words, that seven out of every eight arrests were quite unjustifiable. In 124 cases out of 142 the police were unable to substantiate their suspicion, or in seven out of every eight cases the police had absolutely misused their power of arrest. In the year 1871 there were 90 persons arrested; in 1872, 81; in 1873, 44; in 1874, 36; but it was very interesting and instructive to notice that the Government for these latter years did not make any comparison between the number of persons arrested and the number punished. The power of deciding what were suspicious circumstances would rest, not with the Lord Lieutenant or a superior officer, but with 12,000 men of the Irish Constabulary, who were of an uneducated and of a rather humble class. To confide any such power as was given by this clause to such men was a matter of great gravity. If either of two things could be proved he should offer no objection to the clause. If it could be proved that the police, under former clauses of this kind, had ever been able to intercept men—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the clause.
  MR. SEXTONsaid he begged the Chairman's pardon; the question was one of suspicious circumstances.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are several Amendments upon the words "suspicious circumstances." The question now is, whether magistrates, or medical men, or clergymen shall not be arrested.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was only making a few observations with the object of showing that the police were not a body of men to whom the power of deciding what were suspicious circumstances should be entrusted; and he was saying that if it could be proved that the police had ever intercepted a body of men on their way to commit a crime, or had ever been able to arrest a body of men who had committed a crime and were on their way home, much of his opposition to this clause would disappear.
  MR. SYNANsaid, there were many other classes of people besides medical practitioners and clergymen who were called out on lawful business at night. For instance, lawyers might be called out on business at night; and, indeed, many other professional men and respectable citizens. He was averse to drawing these distinctions between classes, and he would either make the exemption more comprehensive or leave it out altogether.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that he should be very glad indeed to extend the exemption; and if he could he would include the class suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, that, on the contrary, he was rather inclined to restrict the proposed Amendment by leaving out one of the classes—namely, the magistrates. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had spoken about lawyers being out at night; but it was well known that such men were not called out at night like doctors and clergymen. He should certainly vote with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not persist in this Amendment. As regarded the magistrates, it went without saying that they were quite safe from arrest by constables, who looked to the magistrates for speedy promotion; and with regard to clergymen and members of the learned
  1488
  Professions, he did not see why they should be subjected to the same risk of arrest as other people. He should be extremely pleased if the operation of this clause could only add to the odium and detestation in which this Bill should be held. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment they might introduce an exception to save women, at least, from the impertinent prying of the Constabulary Force of Her Majesty's Government. It would be enough to have men subject to this arrest—to let the constables take the chances of encounter with individuals capable of protecting themselves—and to have women exempted from this more than Neapolitan clause. He (Mr. O'Donnell), knowing the good intentions of the hon. and gallant Member, should be sorry to vote against any Amendment he proposed; therefore he sincerely trusted that this proposal would not be pressed.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he (Mr. Healy) would be obliged to vote for the Government. He should do so in the hope that the Bill might spread the dismay of the Irish people, and the disgust they felt with Her Majesty's Ministers and the entire British connection.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 82: Majority 58. —(Div. List, No. 147.)
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the next Amendment which was in his name was a small one, but one which would tend very considerably to mitigate the acerbity of this clause. It would limit the power of arrest to persons who belonged to the district in which they were arrested. Under the 9th clause, complete power was given to arrest strangers; therefore, it was not necessary for the 8th clause to be so wide. He took it that the intention was to confine it to persons living in the neighbourhoods in which the arrests were made. In addition to the fact that the case of strangers was provided for in the 9th clause, there were other reasons why the police should not arrest persons who did not live in the neighbourhoods in which the arrests were made. It was well known that in Ireland people often had to drive 15 or 20 miles to fairs and markets, and that

  1489
  not infrequently they were obliged to start from home at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, or did not return until after midnight. It would be hard for such people, because they might have to travel through a proclaimed district, to be arrested, taken from their business, brought before a magistrate and detained, probably, a week—as they might be under this clause—before they had an opportunity of establishing the fact that they were peaceable and orderly citizens, and bad only been going about their ordinary avocations when taken by the police. If the clause passed in an unamended form, it would render any such thing as railway travelling in Ireland impossible. A number of districts would be proclaimed, railways would run through those districts, and a person travelling in a train running over those railways would be liable to be questioned by a policeman at a roadside station, arrested, taken before a magistrate, detained for a week, and, perhaps, put to the trouble and inconvenience of sending to the other end of the Island, or to England, for evidence as to his identity and respectability, for the sake of satisfying the scruples of the intelligent policeman, or the equally intelligent magistrate or official who sent that officer out. In Ireland, as in England, commercial travelling was an extensive business, and if this clause were passed, this profession might be seriously interfered with—trade intercourse would be interrupted. Moreover, in view of the powers contained in the section, a person would not dare to visit, say, a dying relative, because the moment he crossed the border of a proclaimed district he would be liable to arrest at the hands of the first policeman he happened to meet. The Chief Secretary had told them that he trusted absolutely the discretion of the policeman; and, in order to show how baseless was that trust, it would not be necessary to go into the general character of the police. Granted that they were generally very decent fellows, it could not be denied that many of them thoroughly deserved the worst character that had been given to them in the House, and how could it be otherwise? He believed that in this year's Estimates there was £180,000 given to the policemen of Ireland, because—as the official document put it— they had been "active and intelligent"
  1490
  busybodies. This money was given to them over and above their pay, because they had made themselves a nuisance in their neighbourhoods, and had prepared and sent up to Dublin Castle a great many Reports as to the suspicious cases they had rooted out, and the number of arrests they had made. The payment of this extra money did not depend on the mere performance of duty. The police were expected to do a great deal more than their duty. This Protection of Person and Property Act which was expiring—and which, he trusted, would be allowed to expire—gave the Lord Lieutenant and his Chief Secretary power to issue a warrant for arrest on suspicion, provided it were "reasonable suspicion;" but there was no such section in this Bill. The phrase used was "suspicious circumstances"—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member cannot discuss the words "under suspicious circumstances," because they are not yet before the Committee. They will come on afterwards.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he would leave the discussion of that matter until later on, and would merely say, in answer to the Chief Secretary, that it all depended upon the question of "suspicious circumstances," and that he (the Chief Secretary) had absolute confidence in the discretion of the police. Let the Committee, however, restrict that discretion; let them say that no person should be arrested out of his own district, so as to confine the power of the police to the making arrests amongst a class of people as to whose suspicious character they were more likely to know something. The clause, unless amended, would put an end to all freedom of locomotion in Ireland, and introduce a block to all friendly intercourse between man and man, and enable the police to harass and annoy peaceable and well-disposed persons. His Amendment would remedy some of these defects in the section; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would give it a favourable reception.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 19, after '"person," insert "whose usual or only residence is in such district."— (Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had, no doubt,

  1491
  the Committee followed the hon. and learned Member in the objects he had in view in bringing forward his Amendment; but the proposal was one which, if accepted, would render the whole clause nugatory. This was a statutory power—no power was given to a constable to arrest except under this section, and to exercise it the police constable must show that he had fulfilled all the obligations of the section. If the Amendment were accepted, he could only arrest a man whom he was satisfied was a person "whose usual or only residence was in such district," so that if he met a man walking abroad under suspicious circumstances, with a crape mask on his face, he would have to examine him, and find whether he lived in the neighbourhood, and if he could not satisfy himself that he did reside there, he would have to let him go on his way. The constable would say to the man—"I don't know you; perhaps you don't belong to this district; I must take the risk and let you go."
  DR. COMMINS: A stranger could be arrested under the 9th clause.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know whether the simple fact of a man travelling through the country by railway, and arriving at his destination late in the evening, would render him liable to arrest?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that such a case would not fall within the words "suspicious circumstances."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was unable to follow the Attorney General's interpretation of the clause. Under the 9th section "the arrest of strangers found under suspicious circumstances" was provided for. Under it strangers could be arrested at any time—there was no limit of any kind to the power of arrest. Clause 8 should, in equally precise terms, apply to persons who were not strangers.
  MR. HEALYsaid, hon. Members were entitled to have some statement from the Home Secretary on this question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the main distinction between the two clauses was that Clause 8 applied to the night time, whereas Clause 9 applied to any time, whether day or night. They must have regard to the terrible facts with which they had to deal—to the fact
  1492
  for instance, that last year was one characterized by as great a number of murders as had ever been committed in any year since murders had been classified as "agrarian;" and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary reminded him that, as far as they had gone this year, the murders were still more numerous than last year. That was the state of things they had to deal with. They had to deal with persons who were out at night under suspicious circumstances, who were the class they believed these murders were committed by. With regard to persons out at night, there was no distinction as to whether they were persons resident in a certain district, or whether they were strangers. It must be observed that as his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had said, if a man was found wearing a crape mask, or under suspicious circumstances, it would be absurd to ask him whether or not he was a resident in the district. When they came to deal with the daytime, of course they would not interfere with residents, and the clause would only be applicable to strangers, He would remind hon. Members that this clause was only an extension of the law as it existed in England. In this country a constable had a right to arrest a man whom he had reasonable ground to suspect either had committed or was about to commit a crime. Of course it might be said, "The constable may make a mistake;" but so he might in England, and for the sake of the protection of life and property very large powers were vested in him. But in Ireland where those terrible midnight murders had increased, and were increasing month by month, it was necessary to give constables large powers in the dark—to give them authority to arrest persons found prowling about under suspicious circumstances, and to require discrimination in such cases was out of the question.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he could understand an exception broadly in favour of travellers; but he confessed he was at a loss to understand the distinction between persons residing in a district, large or small, and persons residing outside it. Supposing a farmer living in a certain district went to a fair outside that district—possibly only just over the boundary—he could be arrested on one side of that boundary and not on the

  1493
  other, according to his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. In enacting this Amendment they were going back nearly 60 years, to the Insurrection Act, which was condemned by the Report of the Committee in 1825. Lord John Russell, a witness before that Committee, showed the monstrous character of the clauses in the Insurrection Act, which enabled policemen to arrest persons because they remained out after 8 or 9 o'clock at night. Persons might, as Lord John Russell said—
  "Remain too late and drink too much in a neighbouring inn, and then going from the inn to their own homes they may be arrested."
  That showed the monstrous character of this Bill, that they were retrograding, going back 60 years to the line condemned by the Whigs of 1825 and 1839, and making these enactments against liberty in Ireland. This, however, did not justify his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which he considered would only render the clause twenty times worse.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Home Secretary had not stated the point as it suggested itself to him (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had correctly pointed out that the 9th clause enabled a constable to seize on suspicion strangers by day or by night. At night a policeman could seize a person under either the 8th or 9th clause, as the provisions overlapped. He (Mr. Dillon) would like to ask, therefore, when a stranger was arrested and "brought forthwith before a Justice of the Peace," which clause would he be convicted under?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that that was not the Question at present under discussion.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he would call the attention of the Home Secretary to the desirability of obviating a great mischief in the clause. In line 22, only "a Justice of the Peace" was mentioned, so that a policeman might take the person he had arrested 20 or 25 miles, or even more than that, to a Justice of the Peace. The words, clearly, should be "the nearest Justice of the Peace."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, hon. Members were waiting for a reply from the Home Secretary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not answer with reference to the 9th clause,
  1494
  as that would altogether interfere with the order of discussion.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he understood the question put to the Home Secretary to be this. Suppose a man were arrested in a district by a policeman, under suspicious circumstances, under what clause of the Act was he to be taken before a magistrate? There were two clauses, one after the other, each giving power to arrest a man. His hon. Friend said that, suppose a man travelled in a district he did not reside in, would he be treated as a stranger and brought up under the 9th clause, or would he be brought up under the 8th clause?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to give a clear answer to the question, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would not think he was not doing that. This clause was really a condensed form of the clause relating to persons out at night in the Act of 1870. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) said that all this had been condemned in the years 1825 and 1839; but if that were so, it was found absolutely necessary to adopt it in 1870, and he would point out that the murders at that time had been much less numerous in Ireland than they had, unfortunately, been of late. Ashe understood it, Clause 8 applied to everyone, strangers or non-strangers, and it was the only clause dealing with these matters that had any punishment in it. If he might refer, incidentally, to Clause 9, he would point out that that was only a binding-over clause. Clause 8 was meant to deal with "Captain Moon light" and his troop—this was the Moonlight Clause, and it would be absurd to exclude from it strangers or persons who did not reside in the district. If "Captain Moonlight" resided in the district, if the Amendment were adopted, all he would have to do would be to cross a road or a hedge—to change his residence. When once outside the district he would be exempt from arrest under the clause. In fact, the Amendment, with all respect to the hon. and learned Member, was one of those intended to destroy the clause. He hoped he had now answered hon. Members plainly—whether a man was a neighbour in a district, or a stranger, the clause would apply to him the words "person out of his place of abode," simply referring to his house, his garden, or field. As was said in the discussion on the Act of 1870,

  1495
  persons who were out at night under suspicious circumstances, and could not, when questioned, give a satisfactory account of themselves, and what they were doing, would come within the clause.
  MR. DILLONsaid, this was an illustration of the advantage of having a clear statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and a clear understanding on a disputed point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given a clear answer to a clear question, and, so far as he (Mr. Dillon) was concerned, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the only question he wished to ask was this. Suppose a man who was a stranger in the district was arrested under this clause—and there was not a definition of "stranger" in the Bill—could he not say—"True, I am a stranger, and I am out under suspicious circumstances; you can only arrest me under the 9th clause, and bind me over to keep the peace, or imprison me for a month."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that was not the interpretation which would be put upon the Bill; it certainly was not meant to be. A stranger might be a hired murderer— one of the very men they wished to catch. If the police mot this man with crape on his face, and a rifle or revolver in his hand, was he to be able to say—"I am a stranger in the district, therefore you cannot punish me; you can only bind me over to keep the peace?" Certainly, that was not the intention of the clause, and if there was really any doubt about it, the matter ought to be made clear.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that a policeman could not only arrest a man, but forthwith search him to see if he had any crape or revolver about him?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if he were a constable this is what he should do—and what he should instruct a constable to do if he had any authority over him. If he found a man wearing crape and with a gun or revolver in his possession, he should arrest him at once, and take him before a magistrate
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that if a constable in England reasonably suspected
  1496
  that a person had committed, or was about to commit, a crime, he could arrest him. That, no doubt, was true. A constable might arrest any person, no matter who he was, on suspicion. But that also applied to Ireland, therefore this clause was entirely unnecessary. If a constable had "reasonable suspicion" that a man had committed, or was about to commit, a felony he could arrest him; he was not bound to take him before a magistrate; he could lock him up in the police barrack for a week if he thought proper, or until the next Petty Sessions Court was held. This clause did not enable a constable to do that; but it did not confine his power of arrest to cases where he reasonably suspected that a felony had been committed, or was intended to be committed. It gave him him a roving commission to arrest anyone he could find the merest excuse for arresting, and absolved him from the necessity of having reasonable grounds for such arrest; and when they knew that he had so much extra pay to earn it could not be doubted that he would be energetic, and exercise his powers to the full. As he (Dr. Commins) had an Amendment further on which would, to some extent, prevent the mischief he was describing, he would not now put the Committee to the trouble of going to a division. These vexatious arrests would be largely prevented by putting upon the constable the obligation of taking his prisoner before the nearest magistrate, and depriving him of the discretionary power of appealing to a magistrate 10 or 20 miles away.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he now wished to propose that women should be exempted from arrest under the Bill. He should imagine that the troops of "Captain Moonlight" were not, even in the imagination of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, composed of damsels; yet they could not forget that—although, no doubt, the large majority of the Force were upright and respectable men—in the ranks of the Constabulary there were still those who shot the poor widow Dean, and bayonetted to death young Helen Macdonough. There had been many cases, during the past few months, in which the Constabulary had been drunk whilst on duty. Under this clause such men would be able to arrest any persons

  1497
  they found abroad before 5 o'clock in morning, and drag them before a magistrate' It was well known that over a great part of Ireland the houses of the peasantry were so poor — consisting mostly of but one apartment—that the people were loth to shut themselves up in them, and remained outside as long as they could, so that it was necessary that the scope of this clause should be made as limited as possible. At any rate, there was no ground for subjecting women to the horrors of this law. The Government had the Statute of Edward III. to make use of against women, and they might very well avoid the odium of including them under this clause, and of allowing them to be arrested and dragged before some magistrate on suspicion only existing, probably, in the mind of a tipsy constable. If the Government had any respect whatever for the Irish women, they would do well to avoid exposing those of the peasant class to annoyance at the hands of drunken constables. If they did not, riots and disturbances might be the consequence. Nothing could be gained by including women within the clause, and a great many dangers might be avoided by leaving them out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, after "person," insert "being a male."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought it was obvious that this Amendment could not be accepted, otherwise any persons wishing to commit an outrage would only have to array themselves in female attire to escape arrest. That was the method adopted in Wales amongst the "Rebeccaites," and adopted in the society called the "Molly Maguires," which the Americans put down so successfully some eight years ago. Murders had been committed in hundreds in Pennsylvania by members of the "Ancient Order of Hibernians," who called themselves "Molly Maguires." When they gave power to the English constable to arrest on suspicion they did not say to him he was not to arrest women. They allowed the English constable to arrest English women when there was a suspicion that they had been engaged in burglary,
  1498
  murder, or anything of that kind, and he did not see why they should make an exception to the general practice in the present instance.
  MR. O'DONNELL: You have the same power of arresting women on suspicion of felony in Ireland.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he could not allow a statement which had just been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to pass without contradiction; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman chose to wander off to America and the Thug Associations of that country, and misrepresent the facts, he could not blame him (Mr. Dillon) if he followed him, and corrected what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had led the Committee to believe that the "Ancient Order of Hibernians" was an Association for assassination and murder. He (Mr. Dillon) knew many members of that Society; and he could assure the Committee that they were as peaceable, quiet, and respectable as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. So far from being a murder Association, the "Ancient Order of Hibernians" was a Catholic Association, under the patronage of the Catholic Bishops and clergy.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Home Secretary had brought all this on himself, having said that the clause was directed against "Captain Moonlight" and his "men." He (Mr. Labouchere) would point out that dress did not make a distinction of sex. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the police of Ireland would not be able to distinguish between a man dressed as a woman and a woman; and, if that were so, he must say it was extremely likely that under this Bill the Irish police would make some very extraordinary and some very improper arrests.
  Question put, and negatived.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the next Amendment was in his name. He was sorry that on his last Amendment he had the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) against him; but now he hoped to have not only his moral support, but his support in the Lobby. The object of the present Amendment was to allow a man to be out at night on his own holding without fear of arrest. There were 20,000 or 30,000 people in his (Colonel

  1499
  Nolan's) constituency, and, no doubt, other constituencies were as large; and it was surely very unreasonable that all these should be liable to arrest if they went out oil their own properties or holdings after a certain hour at night. As long as a man was on his own holding he should not only be free from arrest, but free from the threat of arrest. In some cases the police were pretty popular and on good terms with the people; but in other cases they quarrelled with the people, and interfered with them in a manner that was very objectionable, using such threats as this—"Be careful; you had better look out, or you will be arrested." His Amendment appeared to him to be a very reasonable one; and he believed that even the ingenuity of the Homo Secretary would find it difficult to put a case where a man, whilst on his own holding, could be said to be out under suspicious circumstances. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he know, was good in putting cases; but he believed he would have a difficulty in putting one in the present instance.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 20, after "abode," insert "his curtilage, demesne, holding, or property, or the abode, curtilage, demesne, holding, or property of his bona tide master or employer."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right when he suggested that the circumstances must be peculiar when they could arrest a man on his own holding. Such a man had sufficient protection in the words "suspicious circumstances." He could not be arrested unless he was out under suspicious circumstances; and if he was out merely attending to his cattle, or the ordinary work of his farm or holding, there would be an absence of suspicious circumstances. But, at the same time, a man might be found lurking behind a wall on his own holding with the apparent object of committing a crime. The hon. and gallant Member, moreover, had so drawn the Amendment that a man could not be arrested if he were on the property of his master. Why, he might have gone there for the purpose of murdering his master.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he used the word "employer" in his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the words in the Amendment were "his bona fide master or employer." The property the man might be on, therefore, might be quite distinct from his own—it might be miles away from his own house.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the worst murders were committed in broad daylight; for instance, the lamentable occurrence in the Phoenix Park occurred in daylight. And why was this? Why, it was because the murderers could make more sure of their victims—it was because, where firearms were used, a man could not take aim in the dark. The Home Secretary suggested that a man would lurk behind ids own wall or that of his employer in the dark for the purpose of committing a murder. The Home Secretary, he believed, was great at grouse shooting—did he go out to shoot grouse late at night? Certainly not; because in the dark he would not be able to tell a grouse from a water wagtail. The murderer, in the same way, would not be able to distinguish his enemy from his greatest friend in the dark. Under this clause, he (Mr. Healy) was very much inclined to think it would be only the decent and respectable people who would come to harm. The murderers, or would-be murderers, would not be affected, for they would not be caught. Like the poachers in England, when there was any danger of their being arrested, they would fire at their assailants. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen denied that English, poachers shot the gamekeepers and police; but cases of that kind were of every day occurrence. He heard of them every week, and almost every day. Under this clause only the decent people going quietly along the road would be interfered with, because they would be the only people who would have an honest intention, and would not mean to do harm. A man who was lurking behind a hedge or a stone wall with the intention of committing a murder would as soon murder the patrol, if he was in danger of arrest, as his victim. The clause would not effect the object the Government had in view.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he wished to point out that the position the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)

  1501
  was now taking up was thoroughly inconsistent with the position he bad taken up on a previous clause. The hon. Member had objected, a short time ago, to extending a privilege to a certain class of persons; but now he desired to extend that privilege to several classes. He seemed inclined to extend it to those who held land or those who owned it, and to the servants of those who held or owned it.
  MR. HEALYdenied that, so far as he could see, there was the smallest amount of inconsistency in the course he had taken.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. He should vote against it, not that he did not approve of it to a certain extent, but because he disapproved of the whole Act and clause. He did not see how they could expect the Government to accept the latter part of the Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that, to meet the views of the hon. Member, he would withdraw the latter part of the Amendment—namely, the words—
  "Or the abode, curtilage, demesne, holding, or property of his bona fide master or employer."
  He thought that the words would have been of great value to a very large class; but the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) seemed to object to classes being privileged. He would point out, however, that the Amendment he had prepared included such a large class that it applied abstractedly to the whole of the people of Ireland. He did not intend to divide the Committee on the Amendment unless he got some support.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he trusted the Government would accept; and, if they did not accept it, he hoped they would be prepared to propose some compromise. The clause said—
  "In a proclaimed district, if a person is out of his place of abode at any time after one hour later than sunset and before sunrise," &c.
  he should be liable to arrest. Well, that was calculated to paralyze the whole of the business of the country—it showed the dreadful and sweeping character of
  1502
  the clause. Everyone who understood the method of carrying on business in Ireland knew that during the winter months the poorer classes must be out of their place of abode in the hours specified in the clause more than once a-week. The local fairs or markets were held in the large towns twice, and in the smaller towns once a-week, and the people having to attend these were very frequently unable to reach home until long after sunset. Under the clause, almost every man, woman, and child in Ireland would, at some time or other, be liable to arrest at the hands of the police. Very often some of the Irish farmers were not teetotallers. He did not mean to say that there was an extravagant amount of drinking going on amongst the people; but the circumstances under which they attended the fairs, and the hardships which they had to bear, were such that many of them were driven to take something. The result would be, when this clause came into operation, that when they went home a little later than usual, a constable— particularly if he had a grudge against them—to show what a zealou3 and active man he was, would see something suspicious about them, and take them into custody. The clause was a very serious matter, because it put a reason for arrest in the mind of the constable. he had himself very often seen farmers, peaceable and inoffensive men, coming home from fairs, singing, perhaps, a song composed by one of the bards of Ireland; or, in the fullness of their spirits, shouting for the Leaders of the Land League, or giving utterance to some one of the cries that were now so common that one could hardly walk along a road without meeting a person who would hail him with one of the passwords of the Land League. In this case, these men might be regarded as out under suspicious circumstances. If a man was found walking along a road in a state of exaltation, and shouting cries that proved him to belong to a political association, he might be arrested under this clause. The case he wanted to make out was that, in this way, thousands of people, and, indeed, the whole of the population, would twice a-week be subject to arrest through being obliged to be out upon their business. That would be a frightful state of things for the people, and the remaining por-

  1503
  tion of the clause would throw on the tenants the unparalleled necessity of proving a negative in their own behalf to escape punishment. It might be said that these arrests would not be made unless people were out under suspicious circumstances. Then, why fix an hour at which the populace, according to their ordinary habits, would be out? What was the use of fixing a number of hours during which people might be out under suspicious circumstances, and calling that night, when the whole population was abroad, either going from market at night or going to the fair be-fore daybreak. The Amendment he proposed would, at least, secure the people who were attending market, and who could not be in their homes during the forbidden hours every Thursday. He proposed to make the forbidden hours between midnight and 6 a.m. in the winter, and between midnight and sunrise in the summer—that was, from the 1st of May to the 20th of September. If the Government could not agree to fixing the time from midnight to 6 a.m., would they adopt 10 o'clock? He knew that the people were found out on the roads as late as 12 o'clock at night; but he would be willing to accept a compromise.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word "after," to the word "sunrise," and insert the words "between the hours of mid night and six o'clock a.m. in winter, and between the hours of midnight and sunrise in summer, that is, from the first day of May to the thirtieth day of September."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was true that a great number of people of innocent character would be out between sunset and sunrise attending markets or fairs; but he was sure the disguised people spoken of were not the people disguised in liquor. On the whole, he should say that people in that condition of exaltation, such as the hon. Member had described, singing Land League songs, would be the last persons to be regarded as suspicious. That, he thought, would verify the old saying,"In vino Veritas." But although the hon. Member said every man, woman, and child would be arrested, he would appeal
  1504
  to the experience of the Act of 1870, in which the same powers existed and the same hours were fixed. In the first year, under that Act, the number of arrests was 147, and in succeeding years the number diminished; therefore, it had not operated in seizing on the men, women, and children. Suppose the hon. Member's limitation of either 10 or 12 o'clock was adopted for the winter, what would be the result? The whole clause would be utterly ineffectual. This clause was directed against "Captain Moonlight" and his gang, and those men would start from home at 9 o'clock on a winter's evening and shoot people or maim cattle; and could it be said that if a policeman saw a man whom he suspected of being out on such an errand he was not to have the power to arrest that man before 10 or 12 o'clock? What was the real meaning of being out after dark? The same definition was inserted in the Night Poaching Act. The definition after dark was the same, and what was really meant was an offence which took place in the dark hours. In all Acts of Parliament which distinguished between day and night offences, the same terms had been introduced as in this clause. The Amendment would defeat the whole object of the Bill, and it would be impossible to accept it.
  MR. SYNANconcurred in the principle of the Amendment, but not altogether in the hours proposed to be fixed, as he considered them entirely too late, whether in winter or summer. The Home Secretary had justified this clause on the ground of the moderation with which it would be enforced by the police in Ireland; but he begged to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Reports of the Committee of 1825. Sergeant Lloyd, who was the administrator of that Act, was examined, and he said that great injustice was perpetrated on account of the hours being too early. He said hundreds of innocent people were being arrested by the police under the Curfew Clause. In the Act of 1870 the Curfew hours were the same as in the previous Act. To say that one hour after sunset was dark in summer was going very much too far in one case; hut his hon. Friend went, he thought, too far in the other direction, and he thought it would be reasonable to fix 10 o'clock in summer and 8 o'clock in winter. To fix the time at one hour

  1505
  after sunset, and one hour before sunrise, was, according to the evidence before the Committee of 1825, a limit which caused great injustice to the people; and the police of the present day could not be regarded as likely to act more leniently than those who arrested people from 1817 to 1824. If the Home Secretary and his legal Colleagues would look at the Report of that Committee they would be easily persuaded to change the hours and to moderate them in such a way that injustice would not be done to people who were out at reasonable times. People might be out on their lawful business and without any suspicious circumstances, but who was to judge the circumstances? But the same thing occurred under the Insurrection Act, and, according to Sergeant Lloyd and Lord John Russell, great injustice was done. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would moderate his proposal, and, although he could not go as far as his hon. Friend went, he should vote for the principle of the Amendment, unless the Home Secretary altered his limit.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that 12 o'clock, as proposed by the hon. Member opposite, was too late an hour, because by that time the crimes would have been committed. But, on the other hand, an hour after sunset was a little too early. That would be about 5 o'clock in winter, and at that time many people in rural districts would still be going about their work, and it could not be supposed that crimes would take place at that hour. He would advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to make a compromise, and fix the limit at, say, 9 in winter, and 10 or 11 in summer. The present proposal would seriously interfere with a great many people engaged in their ordinary avocations.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Home Secretary seemed to think that the "Moonlighters" had no clear-sightedness or ability; but they were as intelligent as the constables looking after them, and if the constables knew how to lay traps, the "Moonlighters" knew how to escape the traps. If the "Moonlighters" wished to avoid suspicious circumstances, it was easy to arrange their purposes for some occasion when they might be out after dark without incurring suspicion — there might be a
  1506
  wake or a wedding in the neighbourhood, and the "Moonlighters" could take advantage of that. On the second reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary gave the House to understand that he would agree to a particular scale in this Bill, and he (Mr. Healy) had suggested that an almanack should be attached to the provisions, and put into the Act, in order to regulate the hours. But since then the Home Secretary had not shown the slightest sign of yielding to objections. In winter it was sunset about 4 o'clock, occasionally earlier, and the Home Secretary actually proposed that a man should get six months' imprisonment for being out at 5 o'clock. Suppose it was on Christmas Day; any person out then after 5 o'clock would be liable to six months' imprisonment. It was precisely nights of festivities, or other special occasions, which the "Moonlighters" would select for going out on their work. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman suppose that because a man was a murderer he had no common-sense? He appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the entire comfort and happiness of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people was to be sacrificed; and he urged that there should be a little more liberality displayed in the Bill.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought the Bill had been drawn in utter ignorance of the habits of the people of Ireland. Of course, their habits were not much taken into account, but they might have been consulted with regard to this proposal. Anybody who knew Ireland, knew that nobody in any circumstances was in bed before 10 o'clock or 11 at night. During the evenings they visited each other, and at that time they were probably more abroad than in the daytime, when they were engaged at their work. Between sunset and 10 o'clock, when the work was all done, they were likely to be about the roads much more than in the daytime, and would be more likely to be aware of any mischief being done. Nearly the whole of the "Moonlight" offences had been committed between 10 at night and 6 in the morning; and he thought it would be the best plan to adopt, as the limit, from 10 to 5 o'clock. That was the limitation in the Night Poaching Act and the Insurrection Act of 1817, and other Acts; and he would advise the Government to

  1507
  adopt a limit founded on the habits of the people, and on the statistics of crime.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the views of hon. Members would destroy the effect of this clause. Hon. Members would see that whatever might be the habits of "Captain Moonlight," and whatever hours were fixed, they would be evaded. An hour after sunset it was dark, or, at all events, very dusk, and in the winter it was dark at 5 o'clock. If 10 o'clock was fixed, that would make it certain that the outrages would be committed between 5 and 10. That was perfectly plain; and the conclusion was that an attempt to fix 9 or 10 o'clock in the winter would be useless. Suppose a man wanted to waylay another, or shoot down a farmer, and knew that the farmer would probably be out at 6 or 7 on a dark winter's evening, he could shoot the man without being touched by this Act if the limit was fixed at 9 or 10 o'clock. This Amendment had no other object but to defeat the clause. He would suggest to hon. Members to reserve their opposition until the clause was put. seeing that every Amendment was hostile to the clause. Hon. Members had argued that people were out at 9 o'clock, and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said a man could be imprisoned for six months for being out at 5 o'clock; but that was not the case. A man was not to be imprisoned for being out, but for being out under suspicious circumstances. Being out after sunset meant this — it was always dusk an hour after sunset, and soon grew dark, and it was in the dark these evil deeds would be done. People were going about in many ways after sunset in winter; but if those who committed these evil practices were to be caught, there must be power to arrest them under suspicious circumstances as soon as they were discovered.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, it was quite true, as the Home Secretary had said, that the arrest was to be for suspicious circumstances; but who was to be the judge? That was the strength of the position. The police were to be the judges of the circumstances. He would suggest to the Home Secretary whether it would not be possible to make the clause acceptable by applying it to persons disguised.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment immediately afterwards to that effect.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, any way, the suspicious circumstances were the point of the clause. Some protection was necessary against policemen capriciously and factiously exercising their powers of arrest; and with regard to the Home Secretary's statement that "Moonlighters" committed their offences in the night, the most serious offences recently committed in Ireland had been in broad daylight. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Very few.] They were few in number, but by far the most serious; and it should be borne in mind that a considerable number of the offences alleged to have been committed by "Captain Moonlight" had been committed with the collusion of persons desirous of getting a reduction of rent, or attaining some other end. He did not mean to say all the offences had been committed in daylight, but a certain percentage had.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken lived a little West of the Shannon, for he would then know what the position of the people in the neighbourhood was, and the state of terror in which they were as soon as night fell. The condition of the country was frightful. Within the last two years, in his own neighbourhood, where crime had been absolutely unknown previously, emissaries had gone about teaching people to commit outrages, and to strike terror into the hearts of all law-abiding and decent people. In that way the district had been kept in a state of misery and terror for two years, and that ought to be put a stop to. As to saying that these outrages had been the work of persons in collusion who wished to abstain from paying their rents, that was all stuff and nonsense. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh; but they knew, as well as he knew, that that was the fact. And why had they not the courage to state in the House what they knew so well— that people were terrorized by those who committed cruel outrages upon them to prevent their doing their duty? He hoped the Committee would not be influenced by such arguments as had been advanced against this clause.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, if the object of this clause was to deal with offences at night,

  1509
  he thought something might be done in the direction of the Amendment, because they had in English Acts a definition of night. If it was intended that the clause should cover the whole of the 24 hours, well and good; but a definition of night had been applied in English Acts to several offences, which were set out in the Acts, and he thought something might be adopted in this case.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought this discussion was a remarkable instance of the length—the unnecessary length—at which this Bill was being discussed. The outrages against which this clause was directed there were no efficient means of putting down—the class of outrages which the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Cowen) said were committed in the daytime, but the enormous majority of which, as a matter of fact, were committed at night. When were the incendiary fires, of which there had been about 600 in two years? When was the firing into dwelling-houses? When were the visits to farm-houses? When were all those outrages committed? Here was a clause which was the only method discovered of bringing effective punishment to bear against these offences. Hon. Members discussed the clause as if it was a perfect novelty, at something like the length at which the clauses against "Boycotting" and suspension of trial by jury—which it was admitted were novel proposals— were discussed; but this was not a novel proposition. Here was a great crisis; Ireland was in a state in which it was necessary to have a remedy which should be sharp; and surely, in order to produce that result, the Committee ought to be only too glad to take a well-tried and well-proved weapon, the adoption of which in previous cases had not produced any evil results. In the Act of 1870 there was the same clause as this; the same in respect to hours and to suspicious circumstances. That clause was passed through the House after a full examination, and it was proved to have deserved the confidence of the House because it worked thoroughly and effectually. It was not on record that any single objection was ever made against that clause, either on the ground that people were arrested at an hour of the night when they ought not to have been arrested, or that they were arrested as being out under suspicious circumstances
  1510
  when they were really going about their legitimate business. Under these circumstances, considering that the Committee had spent 14 nights in discussing the first seven clauses of the Bill, he thought the Government might fairly ask the Committee to accept this clause, which was a well-tried clause, and under which, during five years, not a single one of those over-coloured cases which had been suggested had occurred.
  MR. SEXTONprotested against the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The Chief Secretary had said, for the second time, that this clause was a well-tried and well-proved weapon. It was a well-tried weapon, but it was not well-proved. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, in 1870, 142 persons were arrested under a clause like this, and that of those only 18 had been punished. In other words, the police could only substantiate one in eight cases, and the right hon. Gentleman did not give particulars of succeeding years; and the necessary inference from the figures that had been given was that the clause might have been well tried, but had been proved to be a failure. He protested also against the right hon. Gentleman's complaint of the lengthy discussion, seeing that the Committee had not yet been engaged an hour upon this Amendment, although it dealt with a clause which proposed to prohibit the bulk of the Irish people, for several months of the year, being out of their homes except at daylight. What would be the operation of the clause? The Home Secretary had given a hint to the "Moonlighters." He professed to speak with great accuracy when he stated that they generally started out about 9 o'clock; and when an hon. Member said that when country people came home singing songs they might be arrested, the Home Secretary replied that the people who sang Land League songs would not be considered people to be brought within this clause. He therefore supposed that the "Moonlighters" would proceed in that way in future. It was undeniable that many of the gravest offences had been committed in broad daylight; and those committed at night were, as a matter of logical argument, committed when the roads were lonely. He would define the men who did these things as being of two classes—the reckless men, who took their lives in their hands and committed

  1511
  outrages in the day; and cautious persons, who chose hours when the roads were lonely, probably between 9 and 10 at night and 5 or 6 in the morning. He thought the Amendment afforded very good ground for reasonable compromise, and be hoped the Government would not throw this opportunity away.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, one of the results of a clause like this, with which the Bill was so thickly studded, would be that the powers given would be very much abused. They were open to be abused. The Chief Secretary stated that no complaints had been made of the abuse of the powers in 1870 and the following year; but it must be remembered that Ireland had not then the same Representatives as it had now, and the right hon. Gentleman would certainly find, as the result of a clause of this kind, that his position would not be an enviable one, for, although cases of abuse might not have been brought before the House by the Members who represented Ireland in 1870, the case now would be entirely different. As an example of the way in which Ireland was represented in 1870, he would mention that under the Act of that year one man was arrested and kept in prison without trial and entirely forgotten for two years, and his case was only discovered after the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had formed an Irish Party in 1875, and after 60 Irish Members had been returned as supporters of that Gentleman's policy. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman desired to argue from the experience under the Act of 1870, which lasted until 1875, he would be very much disappointed by the result. Why could not freedom to be out be extended under this clause? The Government might, at all events, give the limit of daylight, and so make the clause as little objection able as possible; but it seemed to him the Government were pursuing the same policy with regard to this Amendment as they had pursued with regard to other clauses in the Bill—obstinately refusing every concession calculated to make the Bill less rough and less objectionable to the people. He did not think that was a prudent course for them to pursue. It should be the object of the Chief Secretary to reconcile the people of Ireland to this Bill as much as possible; but,
  1512
  instead of that, by putting a clause of this kind into the hands of the local police, he was giving the police an engine of petty tyranny and irritation which would undoubtedly make English rule still more hated than it now was.
  MR. GIBSONobserved, that this clause was for the arrest of persons found out at night under suspicious circumstances. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) practically admitted the necessity for this clause; but he proposed to cut the night in two, and during half he would allow the clause to operate, while during the other half he would leave "Moonlighters" free to do what they liked. He could understand the hon. Member objecting to the whole clause, but he could not understand his present action. The description given to this clause was historically sound, for if anyone looked at the Act of 1870 he would find there every ingredient which this clause contained. What alterations there were were merely formal. It was said the clause might be abused; but, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had shown, the similar clause in the Act of 1870 had been administered judiciously. He himself should regret if wherever there was an arrest there was a conviction, and should prefer to find that the magistrate before whom the arrested person was first brought had looked into the question temperately and, whenever he could, had allowed the arrested person to go free. The history of that clause showed that there was only a very small number of cases in which the magistrates deemed it their duty not to accept explanations and set arrested persons free; and he ventured to say that if this clause was passed, what would happen was this—the people who desired to abuse their liberty, such as "Moonlighters," would know perfectly well that such a clause had been, passed. There was not an item of this Bill which was not weighed and understood by the criminal classes in Ireland, and when they knew that such a clause as this was passed they would take great care to keep out of its operation.
  MR. DILLONcontended that there was no comparison between this clause and the clause in the Act of 1870, and that such a Bill as that of 1870 would now be grossly abused. One thing which the Home Secretary had said, and which the Chief Secretary had repeated,

  1513
  was a piece of audacity. He had said this clause was intended for "Captain Moonlight" and his retainers, and that if this Amendment was accepted there would be certain hours after dark during which "Captain Moonlight" could not be touched. What had the patrols of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) been doing during the winter? Searching for "Captain Moonlight." They had not found him; but could it be said that if they had seen anyone they believed to be a "Moonlighter" they had not attempted to arrest him? They had perfect power for the purpose, and if this clause was not passed, and if the patrols met anybody with arms or under really suspicious circumstances, they could arrest him. "Captain Moonlight" was very much too sharp for the police. It was a case of "First catch your hare and then cook it;" and the police had not succeeded in catching their hare at all. As to the police having powers to arrest, cases had come under his notice in Limerick and Clare in which, failing to catch "Captain Moonlight," the police had arrested all the stout young men of 18 they could find in the daylight under the Coercion Act. It was absurd to talk of this clause being directed against "Captain Moonlight," who had reigned supreme over the country, and whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had failed to catch. There ought to be the strongest proof of the necessity for passing a clause which would place the entire population of the country at the mercy of the police, whether they had committed any offence or not. The Home Secretary denied having described this clause as a clause which would punish any man for being out at night, and said it was directed against suspicious circumstances. The clause would subject the whole population to arrest at the discretion of any constable who would put them in the position of having to prove a negative. It was an extraordinary proposition to place the whole population in such a position, particularly at a time like this, when Party feeling and class feeling ran so high in Ireland. If a landlord was at variance with his tenants with regard to their rent, that landlord could cause any of those tenants to be arrested as being out under suspicious circumstances if they were out after dark. Then he
  1514
  would be the man before whom they would be taken in the first instance, and by whom they would be committed to prison, and the nearest Justice would probably be the landlord or the landlord's neighbour. The Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had stated that by this Amendment a certain time would be left clear for "Captain Moonlight" to carry on his operations. That was the most extraordinary exhibition of ignorance by the police. If the police could not detect "Captain Moonlight," then this clause should be taken out altogether. Was it or was it not a fact that the police patrols had been in the habit of meeting "Captain Moonlight" and his gang, and yet had not arrested them? If so, what was the object of having patrols? One of the reasons why he opposed this clause was that it would have no effect, for "Captain Moonlight" could very well take care not to be seen by the police—as he had proved so far—but certain unfortunate individuals who were innocent would fall under the suspicion of the police.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had obtained a Return relating to the County of Westmeath of persons arrested under the Act of 1870 for being out during prohibited hours. Eighty-nine persons were arrested, but of those only 12 were convicted, leaving 77 who were discharged. The moral of that was that 77 innocent persons were arrested to catch 12 persons. That was the whole meaning of this clause. The Chief Secretary, who, he supposed, like his Colleagues, would forswear his Whig traditions, seemed to think that innocent people who were subjected to annoyance by the police had no cause to complain. He (Mr. O'Connor) had always understood that it was a Whig tradition that the safety of 99 innocent persons was more important than the conviction of one guilty man. Did the Chief Secretary now propose to arrest 89, and then to set 77 free without any compensation for the indignity and annoyance? These figures were more eloquent than the figures which the Chief Secretary had quoted, because h6re, in this small county and circumscribed district, where crime was rampant and where, therefore, the police ought to have known every criminal, the police arrested 77

  1515
  innocent persons out of a grand total of 89. That was what would take place under this Act—only one in 100, or one in 1,000 of the arrested people would be really guilty of any connection with criminal acts; but he supposed it was vain to argue with the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary, because Constitutional principles were not to be mentioned to the Liberal Ministry now in power. Of the 12 persons convicted out of 89, three got three months' imprisonment, three got one month, and the largest number of them only got one week. He supposed that part of the Return would commend itself to the approval of the Home Secretary. A man was to be put into prison and convicted under this clause with the result of one week's imprisonment. If a man only got one week's imprisonment, he could not be one of those "Moonlighters" who maimed cattle and shot men; and he maintained that this clause would be thoroughly inoperative against the persons for whom it was intended. If a man, taken up in the prohibited hours, was only deemed deserving of one week's imprisonment, he could not be a deep-dyed murderer, or a member of cattle.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrose to speak. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Do not answer!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman resumed his seat.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman persisted in refusing to give him any answer, in obedience, not to any cries from the Opposition side of the House, but in obedience to a majority of Members sitting behind him, he should consider that such conduct showed that the object of this Bill was plain, and that any argument in defence of the liberties of the people was unnecessary, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think this was a reasonable proceeding. The hon. Member not having been in the House, and not having heard the arguments which had been used in justification of the course the Government were pursuing in this matter, came down now and delivered a
  1516
  speech which had been delivered over and over again, and said that if he did not get an answer—an answer which, by the way, had been repeated a dozen times—he would move to report Progress. It happened just as much in England as in Ireland that persons were arrested on suspicion; and it was held that a man's imprisonment, under such circumstances, was a totally rational proceeding. It happened every clay in London that men were brought up on suspicion of an offence of which it was afterwards found they were not guilty; yet it was actually made a ground of complaint that these men were not sent to prison.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he begged to withdraw the Motion. It was not in reference to anything the Home Secretary did that he was prompted to make it; but it was because the Home Secretary was interrupted very unfairly and very discourteously by hon. Gentlemen behind him, when he was proceeding to give the answer asked of him.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 196; Noes 29: Majority 167.—(Div. List, No. 148.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had asked him to move the Amendment which stood in his name. It was to substitute a definition for the words "under suspicious circumstances." There had been a great deal of discussion as to whether there should be any definition or not, and it was now sought to introduce one in the Bill. His hon. Friend, however, had now arrived, and he had no doubt he would more clearly explain what he wanted than he (Mr. Labouchere) could do for him.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped the Government would assent to this Amendment. It was simply this. The clause, as it stood, gave power to the police to arrest persons whom they might consider to be out at night under suspicious circumstances. He did not think the power granted by that clause ought to be intrusted to the police. He did not want to say a word against the Irish police. He thought they were a good military body, but did not consider they ought to have those large disere-

  1517
  tionary powers, such as this clause gave to them. He proposed, in page 4, line 21, to leave out "under suspicious circumstances," and insert—
  "Disguised, or having disguises in his possession, or carrying arms, explosive materials, or ammunition, or lurking about premises where he has no ostensible business."
  He thought that if a man were found under any of these circumstances, a policeman would be quite justified in apprehending him; but without such definition the powers conferred by the clause, he did not think, ought to be intrusted to the police, either in Ireland or in any other land. His Amendment, he thought, would be a very useful one, and with it the power of the clause might very safely be intrusted to the police.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 21, to leave out the words "under suspicious circumstances," and insert the words "disguised, or having disguises in his possession, or carrying arms, explosive materials, or ammunition, or lurking about premises where he has no ostensible business."— (Mr. Dillwyn)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'under' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was entirely impossible to make a definition of all the circumstances which might very properly raise suspicion. He noticed there were a great many Amendments of a similar character; and he had a suggestion to make which, he hoped, would remove them. What was meant by the clause was that there should be a suspicion of criminal intent, and, therefore, he was quite willing to introduce into the definition the idea that the suspicion should be one of criminal intent. That seemed to meet all that could fairly and properly be asked, and all that was really intended. He hoped that what he now said would dispose of all the Amendments on this point.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not agree to that. He did not think policemen were proper judges of what was a suspicious intent. Of course, it was meant that a man should be suspected of a criminal intent; but he wanted to define distinctly what circumstances should justify a policeman in thinking there was a suspicious intent. He could not agree, even if such a definition as that his right hon. and learned Friend
  1518
  had promised were inserted, that this arbitrary and very objectionable power should be intrusted to such a body of men.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that his hon. Friend evidently objected to the whole police system of England. Every policeman had the power to arrest upon suspicion of a certain crime without any definition whatever; and, therefore, in refusing to accept what he (Sir William Harcourt) had put forward, his hon. Friend was attacking the whole system upon which the police existed, and the whole administration of the Criminal Law of England. It was perfectly well known, as had been admitted, that any policeman might arrest any man, woman, or child in England upon the suspicion of felony. No one had ever heard of laying down what were the circumstances upon which suspicion should be founded.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that whenever anybody in opposition to the Bill put forward extreme cases, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary grasped at them like a drowning man. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had enumerated, in his (Mr. Healy's) opinion, every suspicious circumstance under which a man ought to be arrested; and it would be disgraceful to any Government to arrest a man under any circumstances in a country district in Ireland, except the circumstances were such as were enumerated by his hon. Friend opposite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was great at second reading speeches, and at melodramatic effect; but would he tell them it was possible to arrest a man on the plea of suspicious circumstances unless he was—
  "Disguised, or having disguises in his possession, or carrying arms, explosive material, or ammunition, or lurking about premises where he has no ostensible business?"
  He defied the right hon. and learned Gentleman to enumerate any other suspicious circumstances which could justify a magistrate in committing a man to gaol under this clause. The whole point was this. The opponents of this clause wanted to prevent its powers being used by the police in an unfair way. They desired that the magistrates should have the power of censuring the police, unless they arrested men under a definite set of circumstances—such circumstances

  1519
  as were enumerated in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). The Home Secretary seemed to have great confidence in the Police Departments, which he had evidently got at the Home Office. It must be remembered, though, that even in England, under the Contagious Diseases Acts, the police had acted in such an arbitrary manner at Dover as to cause a young woman to jump into the sea. ["Oh, oh!"] He was only giving them an illustration of the manner in which he supposed the Home Secretary had got his confidence in the police. In England, where there were no allegations of partizanship, there were constant complaints against the police. How must it be, then, in Ireland, where partizanship was rampant? The Government, he supposed, made it out that there were other circumstances besides those enumerated in the Amendment which might justify the arrest of a man. ["Hear, hear!"] The worthy Alderman the Member for the City of London cheered that statement.
  MR. ALDERMAN W.LAWRENCErose to Order. The hon. Gentleman was not addressing himself to the question before the House, but he was speaking under the supposition that he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had interrupted him. He begged to say that he had done nothing of the kind, and that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were entirely uncalled for.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if the worthy Alderman did not interrupt him it was the first time in his life he had not done so. He, however, apologized to the hon. Gentleman for the mistake he had made. He would ask the Government what there was in the Amendment that they could not accept? And he challenged the Home Secretary to define, with the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentlemen about him, any suspicious circumstances not enumerated in the Amendment. Up to this he had failed to do so; and, therefore, he was simply obstructing the progress of the clause.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked how a policeman was to know in the dark that a man had disguises in his possession, or was carrying a crape mask in his pocket, or arms, or ammunition, or explosive materials, unless, if he had reason to suspect him of an unlawful purpose, he arrested him, and discovered these facts
  1520
  by a search? He had heard many times of men being arrested in London for lurking about under suspicious circumstances, and he did not see that there was anything new in the definition his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had proposed. The mere expression, "under suspicious circumstances," covered everything, and if the words suggested were inserted, they would not prevent arrests being made, because the police would be able to arrest a man under suspicious circumstances exactly in the same manner then as he would under the clause as it now stood.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. In the present dreadful state of Ireland it was not advisable to drive the Government too far.
  MR. METGEsaid, the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) had said it would be impossible for a policeman to discover whether a man carried disguises, or had in his possession arms, or explosives, or ammunition, unless he was able to arrest him; but, surely, if a policeman was unable to judge whether a man was carrying such articles, it must be hard for him to discover whether the man was out at night with a criminal intent. The intention of the Government with regard to this Amendment was much the same as it had been throughout the whole progress of the Bill. Their desire was to leave as wide and general a power in the hands of the magistrates and police in Ireland as possible. In his opinion, it would be far more honourable and straightforward if the Government came down to the House and asked the Committee to give the Lord Lieutenant power to arrest any man any hour of the day or night, under any circumstances whatever. Such a course would be far more consistent with the Whig policy, of which the Lord Lieutenant was so fond.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 172; Noes 34: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
  MR. MARUMsaid, that, after the discussion which had taken place and the Amendment that had been moved, he did not propose to move his Amendment.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he looked upon the clause as far more dangerous than the clause which had preceded it, because under Clause 7 power was vested entirely in the Lord Lieutenant, but under this clause it was vested in a common policeman. In the Amendment which he was now submitting, he proposed to exclude the power of arrest under the clause in cases in which a licence should have been obtained, to remain out after sunset, from Justices of the Peace acting for the county containing the proclaimed district. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had stated that in 1870, according to the Returns which had been obtained, the number of persons convicted, after being arrested on suspicion, was only, on the average, one in eight. They must remember that they were not dealing with England. In this country the magistrates had to have a proper qualification or some social position; but in Ireland that was not the case, and men were put upon the Bench for some particular services they might have rendered the Party in power. He knew, from his own experience, that his predecessor in the City of Waterford had put a great number of men on the Bench simply because they had had the good taste to vote for him at the last Election. The clause, as it stood, would be a most serious inconvenience to Ireland, because there were in that country many sea-side villages, which a large number of people visited during the summer months, and, as was well known, the time these people went out to enjoy themselves was about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) had, a short time ago, proposed to exclude clergymen and doctors, attending sick calls and going about their important business, from the power of arrest; but that Amendment was not accepted. These cases could be covered by the present proposal, and he, therefore, hoped the Government could see their way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 21, after the word "circumstances," to insert the words "unless licensed to be and remain abroad, by writing under the hand of some one of the justices of the peace acting for the county where such district may be situated."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was afraid it would not be convenient to establish a system of passports in Ireland, and it was plain the principle had been already adopted of not making any distinction between different classes. If these licences were granted, they would fall into the hands of one particular class of the community, which class would have a preference over all others. The Amendment would defeat the object of the clause, because it would be impossible for a constable to know whether the document handed to him was genuine or not, and all a person who wished to deceive the authorities would have to do would be to forge one of those licences.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when it suited his purpose, said that it was difficult for policemen to know easy things, and easy for them to know difficul things. It was easy for them, for instance, to know the criminal intent of a man whom they might happen to meet, but it would be difficult for them to know whether the passport which he submitted was genuine or not. As a matter of fact, the police of Ireland were acute or stupid just as it suited the right hon. and learned Gentleman's purpose. As the Amendment would create a privileged class of persons, however, he could not support it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he wished to move to insert, in line 21, after the word "circumstances," the words "such person may be summoned before a magistrate, and if such person be unknown." This would enable the policeman to arrest a man if he did not know him, but if he did know him he would be able, instead of arresting him at once, to summon him before a magistrate. If a constable had reason to suspect that a man was going to maim cattle, or fire into a dwelling-house, or commit a murder, he would be justified in arresting him; but if the offence suspected was of a trivial character, such as leaving open a gate and injuring standing crops, if the man was known in the neighbourhood, it would be better, rather than run the risk of locking up an innocent man, to take his name and summon him next day. It seemed to him that this Amendment would tend very much

  1523
  to mitigate the annoyance which might be experienced under the Act by the liability of respectable people to arrest on suspicion.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 21, after the word "circumstances," to insert the words "such person may be summoned before a magistrate, and if such person be unknown."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not exactly see what his hon. Friend would summon a man for under this clause. Suppose a constable met a person under suspicious circumstances, at night, armed, and, as the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had said, with disguises upon him, was he, because he happened to know that he lived in a certain place, to allow him to go on his way and content himself with summoning him to appear before the magistrates on the following day? He did not exactly see for what purpose the hon. Member would summon the man.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he was surprised the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not see the force of the Amendment. In the case where a man was out under suspicious circumstances, if he was summoned before a magistrate, the magistrate would judge as to those suspicious circumstances, and, if necessary, commit the man for trial. If the man were found guilty of being out under suspicious circumstances, he would be liable to imprisonment for six months. Some questions might be to plain for people to see, or they might be too minute for a mind of such stupendous character as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. These points might be beneath the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but they were not beneath the consideration of those who might have to suffer the pains and penalties of this legislation. Surely, if suspicious circumstances existed, it would be enough for the policeman to describe them to the magistrate. He might be unable to do that; and surely it would be better in such a case that the policeman, who could not make out a satisfactory charge of suspicious circumstances, should not have the power of arresting, but should be obliged to summon the man before the magistrates. A man might be perfectly
  1524
  respectable, and his respectability might be so clearly established, that the first magistrate he was brought before might discharge him immediately. If the clause passed as it stood, the police would have the power to take such a man away from his business, and perhaps do him material injury. If the object was to put down crime and not subject individuals to embarrassment, if it was only desired to enable the police to put down crime and not to irritate people and disturb society, then this clause, as it at present stood, was unnecessary.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Bill had two objects. One was the power of preventing crime, and the other the power of detecting it when committed. If they took away the power of arresting, and only gave the power of summoning in night cases, they were not likely to find a man in the act of committing a crime, or with the evidences of crime upon him. The clause might be wrong, but if it was wrong the objection to it could only be met by striking it out altogether. They first said in the clause that the policeman should say that he suspected the man was about to commit an offence, and now by this Amendment they proposed to say that it was sufficient to take his name and to summon him instead of arresting him.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that if a policeman saw a man whom he suspected of murder, he would have power to arrest him at once; if he saw a man with a crape mask, and whom he believed to be about to commit a felony, he could arrest him. The Amendment was only to meet a case where a policeman only suspected that the man was going to commit a trivial offence.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he understood the alternative was to give the policeman the power of summoning, and he thought that was a thing which the Government might be reasonably expected to agree to. The clause, if amended, would run in this way—
  "In a proclaimed district, if a person is out of his place of abode at any time after one hour later than sunset, or before sunrise, under suspicious circumstances, such person may be summoned before a magistrate, and if such person be unknown, any constable may arrest such person," &c.
  It appeared to him that it would be better to say that any constable could

  1525
  arrest or summon the person, and if the Amendment before the Committee were withdrawn, it might be amended as he suggested.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to move to insert, after "arrests," the words "or summon," with the object of afterwards moving, if the Government agreed to the Amendment, "and if he arrests him may bring him before a justice of the peace." This would give the alternative power of summoning.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 21, after the word "arrest," insert the words "or summon."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had such confidence in the discretion of the police, would not refuse to allow him the option of arresting or summoning—would not decline to trust to his discretion in this matter. There were two classes of men who might come under the clause—one would be unknown, and the other known, and of respectable position. Surely, if individuals belonging to the latter class were found abroad during the prescribed hours, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not hesitate to allow them to be summoned instead of arrested and imprisoned. Their position in society would be such that they would be sure to answer the summons.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that after what the Attorney General had said, it was not for him (Sir William Harcourt) to say anything more. He would point out, however, that this clause would have nothing to do with summonses—it was a clause for prevention. But summonses were not for prevention, they were for punishment. They did not summon a man because he should not commit an offence, but because he had committed it.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Amendment was no preventive; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) did not agree with that view of the matter. The knowledge that he would be summoned, if found out, would be a distinct preventive to a person— it would decidedly induce him not to do anything likely to bring him within the
  1526
  reach of this clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) still remained unanswered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had dwelt over and over again upon the discretion of the police, and the reasonableness of intrusting them with all sorts of power; and yet when they offered to give him the power of either arresting a man or summoning him, as he thought proper, the Home Secretary, all of a sudden, refused to allow any discretion to his remarkable police. If the police were at all deserving of the trust reposed in them, they certainly might be intrusted with that much discretionary power.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the Home Secretary forgot the fact that this clause created an offence. It would be a different thing if all it did was to secure a person who committed an offence and locked him up for a night; but so far from that being the case, it created an offence punishable by six months' imprisonment. There was not a single case of such powers of summary arrest being given to policemen when they knew the offenders and could summon them without any danger or risk. Did any one imagine that a man who was going to hough cattle, or set fire to a house, or a haystack, would proceed with his design if he was intercepted, and his name was taken down by a policeman? It was ridiculous to suppose that, and if the object of the Bill was to prevent crime and to warn men in time, that would be best done in the manner now suggested, and at the same time innocent people would be protected.
  Question put, and negatived.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, which, though small, was very important. If despotic powers were to be intrusted to the police within certain limits, 8teps ought to be taken to prevent abuse. One form of abusing these powers would be to allow a policeman, instead of taking a person arrested to the nearest magistrate, to take him several miles away to a magistrate. His Amendment was intended to prevent a proceeding so vexatious.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would introduce the words "nearest available."
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, to leave out "a," and insert "the nearest available."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That 'a' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the principle mentioned by the hon. and learned Member was sound, and it was right that a person arrested should have his case taken as speedily as possible before the nearest magistrate available; but if that was distinctly put in the Bill, there must be some safeguard to that proceeding. If it was provided that the nearest magistrate was to be gone to, and it should turn out that there had been a mistake, and that the case had not been taken to the nearest magistrate, what would then be the legal position?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government hardly thought it necessary to do more than guard the clause with these words. It was a common thing in Statutes to provide that a person arrested should be taken before the nearest magistrate, and the nearest magistrate meant the magistrate who could be most easily got at.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. DILLON)moved to omit from the clause the words "committing him to prison or," the effect of which would be to take from the magistrate before whom a person arrested should be first taken the right to commit him to prison, and to leave to the magistrate three courses—to discharge the prisoner, or take bail for him, or send him immediately before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The Committee, he observed, would see that the unfortunate person who was arrested would be subject to a series of elaborate powers. In the first place, there was the power of the policeman to arrest him on mere suspicion; then there was the power of the magistrate to send him to prison for an indefinite term; and, in the third place, there was the power of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to send him to prison for six months. When a policeman arrested a man, he was bound to take the prisoner before a Justice of the Peace; but if the man was arrested at 10 o'clock at night, probably no magistrate could be found, and the case would have to wait till the next day. On the
  1528
  following day the prisoner might be committed to prison by the magistrate for an indefinite term, and what security was there against the arrested person being kept in prison for a week or a fortnight on the order of a preliminary Justice? The Government had added a number of Resident Magistrates to the list, and it would be easy to arrange that there should be two Resident Magistrates in each county continually available. It was evidently very unjust that persons arrested could be committed for an indefinite period by a preliminary Justice, before a competent tribunal could deal with the case.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, to leave out the words "committing him to prison or."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, this was an ordinary Petty Sessions jurisdiction, and was exercised every day. The condition was that the prisoner should be brought before a magistrate, and if he gave a satisfactory explanation, should be discharged. If he could not, then he should be made amenable to answer before the Resident Magistrate, and he must either procure bail or not; and if he could not, then he must be committed to prison until he could be brought before the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. DILLONinquired whether it was to be understood that the magistrate was to commit a man to prison only if he could not provide bail?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied, that that was so unless the circumstances were such that the men ought not to be left at large.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, supposing a man was arrested on suspicion of having committed the Phoenix Park murder, could it be supposed that he could be set at large? There were circumstances in which it would be highly improper to set a man at liberty. But, in any case, if a man could not find bail he must take the alternative of going to prison. In either case these words could not be omitted.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the Government were under an extraordinary misapprehension. In regard to the

  1529
  illustration of the Phoenix Park murder, surely a man suspected of any murder would not be arrested under this clause. A magistrate could commit a man to gaol on any crime, whether it was a murder or not; but he wanted to point out that it had already been proved that in nine cases out of ten the men likely to be arrested under such a clause as this would be innocent men, who ought to be at once discharged. The figures quoted proved that; and it was an outrage that men arrested under this clause —for no man suspected of crime would be dealt with under this clause, but under the ordinary law—should be sent to prison for an indefinite term on the order of one magistrate, when they were well enough known to obtain bail. Some people might think this was not a point of importance, but it was one of great importance; because a large number of men might be arrested under suspicion of illegal action, and committed to prison. To a poor man it might be a trifle, but it would be a serious punishment to a man of a higher position to spend even one night in a cell. All he wanted was that a man who was arrested, if he could produce reasonable bail by a person who was known in the neighbourhood, should be released without the option to the magistrate of committing him to prison. If a man in such a case ran away, the Government would be well rid of him.
  MR. SEXTONobserved, that the Resident Magistrates could hold their Court as often as they chose, and asked whether the Government would give an assurance that in no case should a prisoner be detained beyond a certain period? It would be very hard for a man to be kept in gaol for a fortnight on a vague suspicion, and he thought the Home Secretary might name a maximum period of detention.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied, that if the hon. Member would give him time to consider the question, he would see what could be done, for he quite saw the hardship of a man being kept any considerable time in prison before being brought before a magistrate.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that under the ordinary law a prisoner could not be remanded for more than seven days at a time.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpromised to consider the point.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsuggested that the maximum should not be seven days, but 48 hours.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the extraordinary character of this clause was entirely without precedent, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment he proposed to move. It was utterly contrary to the principles of law and justice that when a man was assumed to be guilty of an offence he should then be called upon to prove his innocence, or he would be held to be guilty. Suppose a man left his house for some perfectly innocent purpose, he might be charged with suspicious circumstances, and he would only have his own word to give as to having been on lawful business. No other evidence could be produced in four out of five cases. Would the magistrate believe the evidence of the policeman or of the prisoner? The prisoner might make a plausible statement as to whether he was a "Moonlighter" or not; but very likely a "Moonlighter" would make a more plausible statement than the innocent man. The accused would simply have his own word against the word of the policeman to prove that he was out on lawful business. The words of the clause were, "facts to satisfy the Court;" and, instead of these words, he (Mr. Dillon) proposed—
  "And if such court is satisfied, on evidence produced, that such person was out under suspicious circumstances, and not on some lawful occasion or business, such person shall be held to be guilty of an offence under this Act."
  He could not understand why the Government should refuse to accept that portion of his Amendment; but if they did, he should be driven to the conclusion that they had an intent which he had supposed lay beneath the wording of their own clause—namely, that it should be within the power of the magistrate, in interpreting the clause, to call upon the prisoner to produce evidence that he was innocent, failing which he would be held guilty. The alteration he now proposed would give the fullest discretion to the Court to consider a case. Finally, he suggested these words—
  "But an offence under this section shall not be punished by more than one month's imprisonment."

  1531
  He earnestly urged that portion of the Amendment on the attention of the Government, because, after all, the Government themselves would admit that of those who would be convicted under this section a large proportion must be, to say the least of it, excessively doubtful as to whether they were out with unlawful intent or not. When the Committee came to consider this in the light of what the Government had said as to what they thought would be suspicious circumstances, and the extremely vague character of this expression, they would see that many a man would find himself in suspicious circumstances, and would be held to be guilty, although he had no intent to do anything criminal at all. It was in the nature of the clause to catch a number of men who were absolutely ignorant of any criminal intent. That must be evident to any man of fair mind. If that was the case, what was the great crime of being out under suspicious circumstances, and what object had the Government in taking power to inflict such a punishment as was proposed? A month's imprisonment was fully sufficient to place in the hands of the magistrates; and if a man was found again under suspicious circumstances, he could be sentenced to another month. He took it that a man who had been committed for one month would be under the observation of the police, and, therefore, he did not see what motive, beyond pure vindictiveness, there could be in taking this power.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before I put this Amendment, I must point out that it will practically settle the Amendments which follow, except that of Mr. Leamy.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 26, to leave out from "and," to end of sub-section, and insert "and if such court is satisfied, on evidence produced, that such person was out under suspicious circumstances, and not on some lawful occasion or business, such person shall be held to be guilty of an offence under this Act. But an offence under this section shall not be punished by more than one month's imprisonment."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the objection taken by the hon. Member upon this matter was one which would apply to many offences under the Eng-
  1532
  lish Law, in regard to which it constantly happened that the onus of proof was thrown upon the accused. Under the Vagrancy Act, a man might be committed to prison as a rogue and vagabond, and the onus lay entirely upon him to deliver himself. That Act provided that every person found wandering abroad, or in a deserted or unoccupied building, or in a cart or waggon, not having any visible means of subsistence, and not giving a good account of himself, could be committed to prison. The essence of the offence was in not giving a good account of himself. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: NO.] In spite of the superior knowledge of the hon. Member, he would venture to say that a person who could not give a good account of himself, and not having any visible means of subsistence, would have to prove—first, what means of subsistence he had; and secondly, he would have to give some account of himself in order to go free. That was a common circumstance in England, and the punishment under the Act was three months' imprisonment. They were now dealing with a much more serious offence and a much greater evil than mere vagrancy. The Vagrancy Act was meant to apply to persons who, like gipsies, went about the country without any visible means of subsistence. If they omitted the word "suspicious," they would destroy the whole object of the clause. The moment they admitted the idea of suspicion, they did involve the proposition that the person was to clear himself from the suspicion. The hon. Member would see that the clause could not be subjected to the limitation proposed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the words of the Vagrancy Act were—"having no visible means of subsistence, and being unable to give an account of himself." He had ventured to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was reading the Act, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be incorrect in the statement that a man being unable to give a satisfactory account of himself was the main part of the offence. He was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagined that the word was "or," and not "and;" and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) ventured to think still that having no visible means of subsistence was the main part of the

  1533
  offence which the vagrant was charged with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Act was occasionally administered with severity and injustice. He must remember that nine out of every ten arrested for vagrancy were persons who were known to the police as pickpockets, who were watched continually, and who were rarely arrested even as vagrants until the police had satisfied themselves that the people were in the habit of making their living by pilfering. The illustration which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was a proof of how fallacious his analogy was. He gave the case of gipsies. Everyone who knew anything at all about the matter knew that, in the vast majority of cases, pilfering was until recently one of the means of livelihood the gipsies had. To give a magistrate power, under the Vagrancy Act, to arrest persons who were distinctly marked, and to give a magistrate power to arrest any other part of the population, were two different things. He had thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do the common sense of the Committee the satisfaction of changing his fallacies as he went along. The very ingenious mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have no difficulty in evoking any number of fallacies to support the propositions he might put before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had argued that because a policeman had certain power to arrest a person on suspicion in England, the Committee were justified in giving the right of suspicion, under the terms of this clause, in Ireland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knowing that there was this main difference between the clause now proposed and the law in England—that a person in England could not get six months' imprisonment for being guilty of an offence under the Vagrancy Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might freshen up his memory and give the Committee a better answer than the one he had given.
  MR. PUGHsaid, that, in the case of an arrest under the Vagrancy Act, it must be proved that the accused had no visible means of subsistence before there could be a conviction. It seemed to him (Mr. Pugh) that, under this clause, something ought to be proved before a conviction was obtained because a man was arrested upon the ground that he was
  1534
  out under suspicious circumstances. In order to follow the analogy of the Vagrancy Act, the constable making an arrest under this clause ought to be called upon to prove before the magistrate that the circumstances under which he arrested the man were sufficiently suspicious to justify him in making the arrest. he was persuaded that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see that in this direction the clause really did require some amendment. He (Mr. Pugh) could not altogether agree with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but, before entering upon a consideration of the Amendment, he must point out that, under the clause, not only was there no necessity to prove the suspicious circumstances which were relied upon in making the arrest, but the man was called upon to prove a great deal more than he ought to be. According to the Preamble, this Bill was intended for the prevention and repression of crime, and, no doubt, it was directed against crime of a certain character. The accused was not only called upon to prove that he was not out for the purpose of committing a crime, or that he was out for some purpose other than the commission of crime, but he was called upon to prove affirmatively that he was out on some lawful occasion and business. Suppose he was out poaching. That would not be a lawful occasion, but he apprehended that it was an occasion that this Act was not intended to meet. A man might be out for some purpose which was forbidden by some law or other, but not by this Act; therefore, it ought to be sufficient for him to show that he was not out for the purpose of the commission of crime as defined in this Act. He was not sure whether it would not be held that a young man was out for an unlawful purpose if he were found loitering about premises in which his ladylove lived, but entrance to which might possibly have been forbidden him by the father, the owner of the premises. Let them see what the Amendment proposed to do. He should say nothing with regard to the last part of the Amendment, for it dealt with punishment, which was a separate matter, and it ought to be discussed separately. He would deal with the question as to what ought to be proved against the man arrested, and with what the man ought

  1535
  to be called upon to prove. It seemed to him that the Court ought, first of all, to he satisfied that the accused was out under circumstances indicating the intention to commit a crime, and words to that effect he understood the Home Secretary was prepared to introduce. If the words—
  "If the Court is satisfied that he is out under circumstances indicating an intention to commit crime,"
  or some to that effect, were inserted, then, he thought, the accused ought fairly to he called upon to prove something, and he should be liable to conviction if he failed to satisfy the Court that he was out for some purpose other than the commission of crime.
  MR. PARNELLwished to ask why the Government wanted to have this clause more severe than the clause of the Act of 1870, which was found, according to the statement of the Chief Secretary, to have been sufficient for its purpose? The Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), practically speaking, would make this part of the clause similar to the corresponding part of the clause dealing with the same subject in the Act of 1870. This clause practically threw the onus of proving his innocence upon the person arrested; but the 23rd section of the Act of 1870 obliged the Justices to believe that a person was not out of the house upon some lawful occasion or business, and then they might commit him to gaol for six months with hard labour. He certainly thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend so far as it made the clause similar to the one in the corresponding section of the Act of 1870. This clause said—
  "And if such person, on appearing before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act fails to satisfy the Court that he was out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  He wished to ask why the Government could not accept the Amendment, or some similar Amendment, which would have the effect of reducing the stringency of the clause, and making it correspond with a like clause in the Act of 187o? He had intended to move an Amendment in the same spirit as that of his hon. Friend. His Amendment would have been to leave out the words from
  1536
  the word "if," in line 26, to the word "out," in line 28, and insert "the Court shall believe that such person was not." That would have had the effect of making the clause read in this way—
  "To bring him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting under this Act, and if the Court shall believe that such person was not out of his place of abode upon some lawful occasion or business, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  That would make it similar to the clause in the Act of 1870, and he did not think it was an unreasonable proposal to make to the Government. The Government said the Act of 1870 was effectual for its purpose, and, therefore, he thought they might fairly ask the Government to modify the clause in the direction indicated.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that, whether the exact words of the Amendment were adopted or not, some Amendment ought to be adopted which would carry out the idea embodied in the Amendment. The clause, as it stood, was open to very serious objection, for, being a clause that created a criminal offence, it seemed against the ordinary principles of the Criminal Law by substituting suspicion for proof.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to desire the adoption of the words of the Act of 1870. He had consulted with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and he had to say that his right hon. and learned Friend would be willing to assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he, of course, would withdraw his Amendment, although upon the question of punishment he had received no answer. He was strongly of opinion that the punishment for the offence ought not to be so severe as was proposed in the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONpresumed the Attorney General would move his own Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the matter would want some consideration. He would promise to take the words of the Act of

  1537
  1870, and he would bring them up on Report.
  MR. MARUMmoved, in page 4, line 30, after "Act," insert—
  "Provided, That any person whilst engaged in the fulfilment of any lawful public or private duty or business shall not he deemed to he out of his place of abode under extraordinary and suspicious circumstances, and the mere circumstance of any person being out of his place of abode during prohibited hours shall not of itself, and irrespective of any other circumstances, be deemed to justify such arrest as aforesaid."
  He did not mean to say that the latter part of his Amendment was strictly necessary; but he had embodied it in his Amendment as a result of his own personal experience. In 1871, whilst the Peace Preservation Act was in operation, two persons were brought before him by the police, and, there being no specific charge against them, he discharged them. The occasion of the arrest was the men were out during prohibited hours; but they were not out at that time designedly. In this matter they were dealing with a class of men who were not very intelligent; and, therefore, he thought it was wise that there should be some such provision as he proposed to prevent the arrest of men who were simply out during prohibited hours. As he had said, he did not think the provision absolutely necessary; but, inasmuch as it might afford some safeguard against the abuse of the power of the police, he thought the Attorney General might assent to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 30, after the word "Act," to inserted the words "Provided, That any person whilst engaged in the fulfilment of any lawful public or private duty or business shall not be deemed to be out of his place of abode under extraordinary and suspicious circumstances, and the mere circumstance of any person being out of his place of abode during prohibited hours, shall not of itself, and irrespective of any other circumstances, be deemed to justify such arrest as aforesaid."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the effect of adopting the Amendment would simply be the negativing of the clause. If a man were not out under suspicious circumstances he would not be guilty of an offence. He did hope the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LABOUCHEREmoved, in page 4, line 30, after "Act," to insert—
  But in case he shall so satisfy the Court, he shall be entitled to such sum as the Court shall deem to be sufficient indemnity for loss of time or any other damage caused by such arrest."
  The object of the Amendment was that in case a person was unfairly or unjustly arrested, he should have some species of indemnity. The Home Secretary would say that compensation was not given in England when a person had been arrested on suspicion, and he had not been found guilty; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear in mind that this was quite an exceptional case. A respectable man might be walking along the road, when any policeman, believing him to be on some suspicious errand, could arrest him, lock him up for the night, and bring him before a magistrate the next morning. The man might lose a certain amount of money by the arrest; in any case he would lose a certain amount of time; and he (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that some little indemnity should be granted to the man wrongfully accused. He did not ask that the indemnity should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but out of the local rates, or out of the surplus revenue of the Irish Church Fund. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him from what source the money was obtained, provided compensation was paid whenever loss or damage had been sustained by the action of the police.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to move any Amendment which involves an expenditure from the Public Exchequer. This Amendment does not come at all within the scope of the clause.
  MR. HEALYasked if the Amendment would not be in Order if it provided that the compensation should be paid out of the local rates?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That can be done if the Committee so decides.
  MR. HEALYsubmitted that the hon. Gentleman would be in Order in proposing that the indemnity should be paid out of the county rates.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might make such a Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would move that the indemnity be paid out of the county rates, or the surplus of the Church Fund.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 30, after the word "Act," to insert the words "but in ease he shall so satisfy the Court, he shall he entitled to such sum as the Court shall deem to he sufficient indemnity for loss of time or any other damage caused by such arrest out of the county rates."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was rather late for the hon. Member to propose this Amendment. The arrest of people might become to them, under such an Amendment, a very lucrative occupation. A man might make himself suspicious in order to be arrested at night, and get an indemnity the next morning.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the object of the Amendment was to place some little check upon the overweening zeal of the Irish police, and some check was certainly necessary. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to imagine extreme cases from his point of view. Why not the Irish Members imagine extreme cases from their point of view? Why could not they imagine an over-zealous policemen having a desire to arrest a man, no matter whether he had good cause or not? It was not likely that a policeman would get into any trouble if he made an unjust arrest; but, on the contrary, he would get credit from his superior officer for being extremely zealous and active. Let them imagine another case. The Home Secretary had a way of giving wings and freedom to his imagination. Let them try something of the same style of argument, and let them suppose the case of a policeman or magistrate who had any spite against a particular individual. Under this clause, it would be in the power of these officials to arrest the man if he happened to be out at night, and bring him up next day only to send him about his business again. The police and magistrates could, under this clause, harass and annoy the people, although they might not always be able to inflict punishment upon them. He did not think that was a far-fetched supposition; indeed, it was more reasonable than the humorous idea which had been laid before the Committee by the Home Secretary.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, no Amendment could possibly be more unpopular with
  1540
  the tenants; and he was sure that if the hon. Member knew that the money proposed to be given would neither come out of his own pocket, nor out of the pockets of the landlords, he would at once withdraw his proposal.
  MR. SEXTONhailed with satisfaction the appearance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as champion of the tenants of Ireland.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the proposal would, if accepted, inflict a pecuniary loss upon those whose interests the hon. Member advocated. Why should innocent ratepayers suffer in having to provide compensation for wrongs thus inflicted upon other innocent ratepayers?
  MR. GILLsaid, as there seemed to be an agreement that this expense should not fall on the ratepayers, he would suggest a less objectionable course, that would save the rates, and, at the same time, curb the excessive zeal of the Constabulary, and that was to make the money chargeable on the £180,000 about to be voted to the Irish Constabulary.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. MARUMmoved to add, at the end of the clause—
  "Provided, That if he decline to tender himself for examination as such witness, the ordinary presumption of innocence shall not be thereby rebutted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was impossible to accept the Amendment; it must be a matter left to the discretion of the magistrates and the Court to deal with. They could not tell the magistrate what he must think of the conduct of a person under such circumstances.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. METGEsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he thought the Government could accept. It was one of considerable importance to the poorer classes, because it was probable that among these a great number of arrests would be made, and the children and families of the person arrested might have to suffer considerable privation on account of the suspicion of crime upon which the arrest was made. There was nothing exceptional in the words he wished to add at the end of the clause; it was merely assimilating the Bill to the law as it stood in England under 12 & 13 Vict., where there was a clause ex-

  1541
  tending the right of Poor Law relief to families of persons confined in gaol or other places of custody; whereas, in Ireland, Poor Law allowances could only be extended to families of persons incapacitated from mental or bodily infirmity. So, in the case of any person arrested under this Act, his family would be excluded from the benefit of outdoor relief. The persons likely to be arrested under this Act were of the labouring class, shop-assistants, and the lower class of artizans, just the classes whose families were least able to support themselves when the male head of the family was taken from them. For this reason he thought the Government should accept the Amendment. He moved similar words to the Act of last year, and after some hesitation the Government accepted them, and to his own knowledge they proved a considerable benefit to poor people. The chief reason, which he would press upon the Government was this—that hardly as the Coercion Act bore upon the people of Ireland, one of its worst features was the fruit that it inevitably bore, and one of the most bitter feelings raised among the people was that not only were they liable to arbitrary arrest, but that arrest included misery and destitution to the members of their families.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, at end, to add "the family, if any, of any person detained under this Act, shall not thereby be incapacitated from receiving outdoor relief, if otherwise qualified to receive it, but shall in all cases be dealt with by the hoard of guardians of their respective unions in the same manner as if the person so detained under this Act had been suffering from mental or bodily infirmity."—(Mr. Metge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the words were better as they were to be found in the Coercion Act of last year, and they would come at the end of the Bill. Those words were that the provisions of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act of 1880, and as amended by the Act of the same year, should apply so far as outdoor relief was concerned. He would suggest, as regarded these provisions, that during the continuance of this Act they should be extended; but whether the Amendment should come here or at the end of the Bill was another matter. But he trusted the Government, if they
  1542
  did not accept the Amendment now, would not exclude it from their consideration later on. Then, perhaps, his hon. Friend would be induced to move the Amendment in the form of the Act of last year later on. The Committee had now reached a time when, perhaps, it was too late to consider the matter, unless the Government had made up their minds on the point.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if the Amendment were accepted, its proper place would not be at the end of this clause. If the Amendment were brought up on Report it should receive every consideration meanwhile; but he could make no promise on it.
  MR. METGEreally thought the Government might make some promise. It was a matter of the greatest importance, and there was no possible reason urged against the Amendment. With the intention of raising it later on he would now withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be admitted as a fact that the crimes and acts that this Bill was intended to repress were connected with rural life and occupations with which cities and towns had no connection. In towns people moved about upon their ordinary lawful business at a much later hour. Were the Government willing to accept some such provision as this—
  "Provided, That no arrest shall be made under this clause at an earlier hour than ten o'clock at night in any city or town in Ireland."
  He begged to move an Amendment in those words.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, of course the Committee understood that this clause would only apply to proclaimed districts, and it was unlikely that towns would be proclaimed. And then it was very difficult at the moment to provide a definition of the term "town," should it be municipal borough, or Parliamentary borough, or what else. If the Amendment were brought up on Report the Government would take it into consideration; but they could not accept it now. There was some force in the observations made by the hon. Member; but, in the absence of the Home Secretary, the only promise that could be made was that the Amendment should be considered.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the contention all along had been that this clause was intended to deal with "Moonlight" outrages, and therefore there was every justification for the Amendment.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, as to the remark of the Attorney General, that towns were not proclaimed, he would remind the Committee that the town he represented was proclaimed a few months after the Coercion Act was passed, and ever since. Against the evidence of Judges of Assize and the Judges of County Courts, that the town was perfectly free from agrarian crime, the town had remained proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. So he did not think that there was any reason to believe that towns would not be proclaimed under the Bill.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would consent to withdraw the Amendment now, and if the Government did not put down a similar Amendment he would move it on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. DILLONsaid, before the clause was passed, he would urge upon the Government that they should consider, between this and the next stage of the Bill, a reduction in the punishment to be inflicted under this clause. It was monstrous that a penalty of six months' imprisonment should be inflicted, and where, as he had succeeded in demonstrating, of necessity a great many innocent men must suffer. He did not know how the clause could be worked without dragging a number of innocent men to prison, and he thought the Government might be content with one month's imprisonment as the penalty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, with a view to meeting the point raised, the Government would consider whether any modification could be made in the punishment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 98; Noes 27: Majority 71.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Alexander, Colonel

  Agnew, W.

  Allen, H. G.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Armitage, B.

  1544

  Armitstead, G.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Asher, A.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Holms, J.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Howard, E. S.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Illingworth, A.

  Borlase, W. C.

  James, Sir H.

  Brand, H. R.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Lawrence, W.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Lea, T.

  Brise, Colonel B.

  Leake, R.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Brown, A. H.

  Lee, H.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Buxton, F. W.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Leigh, R.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Long, W. H.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Causton, R. K.

  Monk, C. J.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Morley, A.

  Cohen, A.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Onslow, D.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Paget, T. T.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Parker, C. S.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Dodds, J.

  Porter, A. M.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Richardson, T.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Schreiber, C.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Scott, M. D.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Severne, J. E.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Fort, R.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Fry, L.

  Stewart, J.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Givan, J.

  Warton, C. N.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Waugh, E.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Whitley, E.

  Grant, A.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Wilson, 1.

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

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Woodall, W.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  TELLERS.

  Heneage, E.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Kensington, Lord

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P,

  Byrne, G. M.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Callan, P.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Commins, A.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Corbet, W. J.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Gill, H. J.

  Sexton, T.

  Healy, T. M.

  Sheil, E.

  Labouchere, H.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Leamy, E.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Synan, E. J.

  Martin, P.

  Marum, E. M.

  TELLERS.

  Metge, R. H.

  Power, R.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter-after Two o'clock till Monday next.