Commons Sitting of 19 June 1882

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Robert William Duff, esquire, for the County of Banff.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings [No. 235].
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Aecrington Improvement (changed from Accrington Extension and lmprovement)*; Blackburn Improvement; Bolton Improvement*; Chadderton Improvement*; Macclesfield Corporation*; Manchester Corporation: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Improvement*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Sending—Highway Rate and Expenditure*[209].
Second Reading— Petty Sessions (Ireland) [203].
Committee— Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Fourteenth Night].
Committee—Report—Copyright (Musical Compositions) [161].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5)*[160]; Local ment Provisional Order (No. 11)*[186], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BLACKBURN IMPROVEMENT BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. HOPWOOD,in moving, as an Amendment—
    "That it is inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Improvement Bills, or any of them, included in the reference to the Committee on Sanitary and Police Clauses of March 13th, 1882, unless such portions thereof as create local sanitary or police law, exceptional to the Law of the Realm, be omitted therefrom,"
    said, he was quite sensible that his Amendment was somewhat ill-timed, considering the present block of the Business of the House; but he hoped that indulgence would be extended to him while he pointed out that this was a continuation of what he considered to be a useful protest in regard to legislation in this direction which he had made a few weeks ago. It would be in the recollection of the House that certain Bills which were connected with sanitary arrangements and police matters had been referred to a Select Committee; and the whole of those Bills now stood on the Paper for further consideration. He had objected to them when they were originally before the House, on the ground that a large number of provisions were contained in them which would, if they were passed, effect an alteration in the general law of the land; and that it was inexpedient to sanction such provisions in Private Bills.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned:—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

  BLACKBURN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  MR. HOPWOOD,resuming, said, he had been explaining to the House the position of this matter. On the 13th March it was ordered by the House—
  "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number, to whom shall be referred all private Bills promoted by Municipal and other local Authorities, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law; and that it be an Instruction to such Committee to make a Special Report to this House in respect of any such powers as the Committee may sanction, together with the reasons on which the grant of such powers are recommended and the recent precedents applicable to the case."
  That Order was acted upon, and these Bills were referred to a Committee of hon. Members specially selected for the purpose; and, so far as he (Mr. Hop-wood) was concerned, he would join in bearing his testimony to the able manner in which the Committee had discharged their duties, and had complied with the general directions of the Instruction they had received from the House. Nevertheless, he had still to call attention to some matters, although not in a sense of hostility, in these Private Bills which had not been reported upon by the Committee, in the hope that in future precautions would be taken to prevent the inconvenient course adopted in the present case from becoming a precedent. The House knew what the general mode was of introducing Improvement Bills of this sort. The Bill itself usually had in view some special wants of the town in connection with which it was introduced, such as gas, or water, or possibly highways. There might be some special demand which called for legislation, and for legislation which might be properly applied locally. But when the Bill was brought in due form before the Corporation, some member of the Corporation, who had some "fad" upon some other general subject—perhaps of health—availed himself of the opportunity of converting the measure into an Omnibus Bill, so as to include in it a number of other matters on which he thought legislation might be fairly and effectively introduced. The Corporation thereupon set to work to see how this was to be done. It was provided by the Legislature under Leeman's Act that due notice should be given to the town affected, that a meeting should be called to discuss the

  1561
  proposal, and that nothing whatever should be done without proper information having been conveyed to the people of the town who were interested in the project. But the way in which that provision of that Statute was carried out was to insert a sort of advertisement in the newspapers, intimating that a Bill was about to he promoted in Parliament, containing provisions respecting gas and water, and "for other purposes." Then, under the "other purposes," most important clauses were introduced, often infringing the personal liberty of the subject, and placing every sanitary and police regulation under the exclusive control of a certain class of persons who were, as a general rule, able to introduce such measures as "unopposed." He was sensible that the subject was one to which he could not induce the House to devote all the attention it deserved; but he, nevertheless, felt himself bound to call attention to the matter, and to show the evils which the existing system engendered. As he had already stated, a Select Committee had sat upon these various Bills, and it would probably interest the House to show the nature of the provisions which the Committee had considered it right to cut down. He would refer for an example to the Dundee Police Bill. That Bill contained clauses of this sort—that every person who committed, or attempted to commit, falsehood, fraud, or otherwise, in the course of an investigation before the magistrates, should be liable to imprisonment for 60 days; and that a pawnbroker or broker should, under certain circumstances, be punishable as the receiver of stolen goods. Then there were provisions in regard to disorderly houses, and powers enabling medical men to inspect and examine every house and premises, and every person residing in such house or premises, in order to ascertain if anyone was suffering from any infectious or dangerous disease. There were powers also to issue and enforce regulations in regard to the prevention of disease. A number of these powers were struck out by the Committee before whom the Bill was sent; but not only the Dundee Police Bill, but the Newcastle-on-Tyne Improvement Bill, and various others, contained a number of similar extravagant provisions. He could not say that such provisions were actually applied for by the Corporations interested, because he understood that
  1562
  when a town wanted an Improvement Act, it was the practice to send up general instructions to a Parliamentary agent, who thereupon set to work and included in the Bill every possible provision which any other town in a distant quarter had ever either obtained or sought for. The object of the Act was to try these propositions again before a Committee, who might feel that, in the event of the Bill being unopposed, they were to be passed without question, and in that way a Bill, containing provisions which the Legislature never intended, was passed by a Committee upstairs and became the law of the land. It was as well that the House should know that a Private Act was just as much an Act of Parliament as any public one. It was not generally supposed to be so; but, as a matter of fact, it certainly was so, and hence it was that they had an accumulation of provisions in Private Acts which were contrary to the generally received law of the land. Owing to the adoption, by means of such Private Acts, of peculiar legislation, the law had become as diverse in form in many localities as the numerous laws and jurisdictions which characterized France prior to the Revolution. He believed that, in the Resolutions they had arrived at, the Select Committee had done excellent service; but, although they had rendered excellent service in certain respects, they had thought it right to sanction two long series of sections in the Bill before them, which made a considerable addition to the Sanitary Code, and they had done so, in his (Mr. Hopwood's) opinion, without hearing the people who were interested on the other side. They had trusted altogether to the suggestions of the Local Government Board; and, in doing so, he submitted that they were entirely in error. He would admit that there was great value in having some Department of the State responsible to the House for what was passed in the shape of these Local Bills; but when he found that the Local Government Board were prepared to go in advance of the public mind in regard to sanitary legislation, he contended that a Committee of this kind ought to have exercised its own independent judgment in the matter. He would not go the length of saying that the Committee, in this instance, had not done their duty; but what he did say was that certain objectionable principles

  1563
  which had been pointed out by him had been left untouched, and that alterations of the general law ought not to be made in the shape of Private Statutes. The Committee, in their Report, stated that—
  "Anomalies and irregularities have undoubtedly received the sanction without the full knowledge of Parliament; and it appears to the Committee that such provisions, whether punishable or otherwise, should not, as is too often the ease, by the mere fact of being unopposed, escape the publicity which their importance demands."
  They then proceeded to say that they had examined the clauses of the Bills submitted to them, and had struck out a large number of clauses proposing to give powers which might be already obtained by means of bye-laws under general Acts. Their defence for sanctioning the two particular sets of clauses they had inserted was, in the first place, in regard to the sanitary regulations, that they were asked for mostly by the medical officers of the Corporations interested. Now, the medical officer of a corporate body might be one of the ablest of men, or he might be, as was too often the case, a practitioner subordinate to many others in the same town, quite inexperienced and unskilled, and yet it was proposed to give him these exceptional and extraordinary powers at his own request. He would give the House one quotation from the evidence to illustrate what he meant. It was the case of Bolton, and a medical officer was called before the Committee in support of a clause conferring exceptional powers in regard to infectious diseases. The clause provided that if any person had resided in a house, or any part of a house, in which there had been within six weeks previously a person suffering from an infectious disease, which house had not been disinfected to the satisfaction of the Corporation, &c., and no person residing in such house, or part of such house, should receive books, &c, on loan from any such house, any person offending being liable to a penalty of 40s. The witness was a Bolton practitioner, who was called in support of the Bolton Bill; and his evidence was to the effect that it was desirable to legislate to prevent the transmission of disease by means of books, letters, pamphlets, and so on. Being asked to give an instance in which a disease had been so transmitted, the witness stated that,
  1564
  about a month or six weeks previously, a case came before him which clearly established that small-pox had been transmitted by that means. The case was that of a young lady engaged in the distribution of tracts from house to house. She caught the disease, and subsequently died; and the witness thought it was quite possible that the work she was engaged in—of distributing tracts in the district—contributed towards the spread of the disease. This was the evidence of a gentleman who was to be charged with the administration of one of these Private Acts which sought to add to his power; and this was the way in which he was prepared to deal with these most important questions. A Member of the Committee asked the witness on what theory he submitted that the young lady had caught the infection from the tracts, and not from contact with any individual she might visited; and the answer was, that she might have done so, but she might also have taken it from the tracts; and he thought the distribution of tracts, under the circumstances, ought not to be allowed. The same Member of the Committee asked him if he had known, in the course of his experience, a case in which an infectious disease had been taken from a monthly magazine. The witness said he could not quite recollect a case in which such a thing had occurred. The question was repeated—"Did you ever know of a case where a disease or disorder was taken from a magazine?" and the answer was—"I do not know of one. "Yet, in the very district to which this evidence applied—namely, Bolton, it had transpired, within the last few days, that a medical gentleman had sent a patient whom he was attending to a small-pox hospital; and yet the patient turned out to be suffering only from measles. These were the men who clamoured for these violent and stringent Acts—persons with peculiar "fads," at whose instance respectable people were to be conveyed from their residences to hospitals for the treatment of infectious diseases, often in a state in which they were totally unfit to be removed.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he rose to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) was illustrating his case by quoting a series of clauses which had been disallowed by the Committee, and which were not, therefore,

  1565
  in any of the Bills now before the House. He would ask the Speaker if it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, to apply his argument to provisions which had been struck out of the Bills referred to the Select Committee?
  MR. HOPWOODhoped he might be allowed to explain the reasons which induced him to refer to these matters.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question before the House was the consideration of the Blackburn Improvement Bill. He did not gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that his remarks had any relation to that Bill; but he was bound to say that the conversation which was being carried on generally throughout the House prevented him from gathering accurately what the hon. and learned Member's statements exactly were.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he regretted, as much as the right hon. Gentleman, the indisposition of the House to listen to the discussion of these Bills; and he could assure the House that he had undertaken a task which was likely to be of very little profit to himself, and for which he expected to receive a very small modicum of thanks. He begged, however, that for a short time longer the House would extend their forbearance to him, because he felt himself bound to point out certain facts, although he was not in the least degree disposed to enter at length into matters which had been taken from the purview of the House by the very beneficial action of the Select Committee. His illustrations were only meant to show that the authority which had power given to it by one of these Bills to carry into operation very exceptional clauses was a power that was not fit to be entrusted, in an arbitrary manner, with such extraordinary provisions as were sought to be included in Acts of this kind. He only desired now to make one or two observations upon the sanitary regulations dealt with by the Committee. The Committee stated that—
  "It must be noticed that the Local Government Board, who are the Department charged with the execution and supervision of the Public Health Acts, have been parties to similar enactments in Provisional Order Bills passed by their authority through Parliament, notably in the case of the Manchester Provisional Order Act, 1878."
  1566
  He (Mr. Hopwood) thought this paragraph afforded proof that Imperial legislation was demanded on the question; and that neither the Local Government Board nor any other Department should be allowed by Provisional Orders to sanction regulations deviating from the general law. He believed very few hon. Members knew what was contained in the body of a Bill for giving effect to a Provisional Order. A Bill for confirming a set of Provisional Orders was often addressed to half-a-dozen different centres of population; and in the instance referred to it had dealt with contested matters which were, at that moment, proposed to be dealt with by more than one general Public Bill. He might also point out that the Select Committee, in the conclusions they had arrived at, had not before them the judgment of the population with which these Bills dealt. The people of the localities had not been in the least degree consulted. He had already shown how these things were done; and he would submit that in none of the towns directly interested were the inhabitants generally made acquainted with the nature of the regulations sought to be imposed on them. The Local Government Board recently held an inquiry, with the view of adopting the notification of diseases at the request of the Office of Health, at Rochdale; and there the medical men of the locality, in a large majority, assembled and protested against the proposed action of the local authorities. In Liverpool, when it was attempted to enact similar provisions, 248 signatures against the proposal were immediately obtained representing the immense majority of the medical gentlemen of the town. In Nottingham and in Bolton clauses of this kind had been inserted into Local Bills; but in both places similar objections had been expressed by a numerous section of the inhabitants, and he was satisfied that the vast majority of the medical practitioners of London would resent any such attempt as this to impose exceptional sanitary and police regulations upon the people. A Return had been presented by the Local Government Board as to the effect of legislation in Private or Local Acts upon the question; but such a Return was asked for under circumstances which would insure a favourable answer. Therefore, the answers which had been returned were of a most favourable

  1567
  kind; but the sole proof attempted to be given of the satisfactory working of the regulations was that the death-rate 10 years before they were passed had been so much, whereas during three, five, or six years after their passing it had only been so much. But it did, not follow that the improvement was the logical result of the passing of the Acts. There might have been a hundred other causes at work in producing satisfactory sanitary results, such as the pulling down of houses which were unfit for habitation, the improvement of the sewerage, the provision of a better supply of water, and the increased cleanliness of the district. All of these things were causes which might have had a preponderating effect upon the sanitary condition of a town. He had in his possession figures which ho might quote in illustration of his argument; but he did not propose to inflict them upon the House. But a comparison between Liverpool and Bolton might be drawn, one town having these provisions, and the other not; and the statistics were strongly in favour of the city of Liverpool, which had steadily refused to have such clauses, and against Bolton, which had possessed them, perhaps, as long as any town. The figures clearly proved that the death-rate had diminished much more rapidly in Liverpool than in Bolton during the same period of time. So much, then, for the value of these Returns, which he certainly would have dealt with at much greater length, if it had not been for the impatience of the House. Of course, it was only to be expected that Returns obtained under such circumstances would be favourable to the continuation of these powers. The persons from whom they were obtained were the very persons who had either brought or carried Bills before the House asking for similar or greater powers. He submitted that Returns gathered from such a source were not reliable, and that there ought to have been evidence taken on the spot in the various towns to show what the general feeling of the inhabitants was. The Select Committee referred to some of the other powers which these Corporations sought to obtain, and especially to those which were to empower Corporations to close schools and to exclude scholars from schools during the prevalence of infectious diseases. The Committee said that—
  1568
  "These, though plausibly urged, seemed to the Committee objectionable and unnecessary; first, because the managers of public elementary schools (which form the vast majority of day schools within urban districts) ought to be held exclusively responsible for the exercise of a proper discretion on so important a matter; and secondly, because the managers have been, recently, under the 98th Article of the new Code, expressly required by the Education Department (presumably as a condition of participation in the grant) to conform to any intimation they may receive from the Sanitary Authority in regard to the necessity of such closing or exclusion."
  Then, in the Appendix, the Committee give a classification of diseases, and empowered the Corporation to pay a registered medical practitioner, who sent in a certificate or declaration, a certain fee. The Report also contained observations in reference to certain educational provisions, and in this respect the Select Committee had allowed clauses which were of a somewhat doubtful character. All must feel that education was a matter which could not be rightly dealt with in a Local Bill. Nevertheless, the Select Committee sanctioned, in regard to the Manchester Bill, very important provisions as to juveniles employed in hawking newspapers, &c. Now, he (Mr. Hopwood) believed himself that the grounds for this legislation existed just as much in London, and in some of the other large towns, as in Manchester; but it appeared that some of the most benevolent people in Manchester had arrived at the conclusion that it was wise to adopt in that city the clauses of the Scotch Education Act in regard to young children. His only protest was that such provisions ought not to be contained in a Private Act, and that Parliament should not attempt to do that in a Private Bill which should only belong to a public measure, to be applicable to all places. He believed himself that the public law of England, as contained in the Elementary Education Act of 1876, did all that was necessary in regard to this matter. In the first place, any child under 10 years of age was prohibited from being employed, and anybody who took such a child into his employment rendered himself liable to a penalty of 40s. That being so, the Act of 1876 applied to all employments. It appeared, however, that two years after the passing of the Act of 1876 the Elementary Education Act for Scotland was passed, and it

  1569
  seemed to have been thought necessary in that Act to establish some prohibition in regard to casual employment. But he submitted that, as the general law applied to all employments, there was no necessity for a special intervention in regard to casual employment. Then, in addition, there were several other clauses in the Act for England, and others in the Act for Scotland, which, to a certain extent, ameliorated the severity of this provision; and yet they had not been adopted by the Select Committee. The Select Committee had only selected that portion of the Scotch Act which imposed a restriction upon children under the age of 14 years, and provided that after the passing of the Act no child under that age, unless he had obtained a certificate of ability to read and write, and a knowledge of elementary arithmetic in terms of Section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, should be employed in any casual employment after 9 o'clock at night from the 1st day of April to the 1st day of October, and after 7 o'clock at night from the 1st day of October to the 1st day of April. The Committee, however, had left out an important part of the Act of 1876, and that was the provision which enabled a boy or girl to be employed, if he or she had completed the requisite number of attendances at a school under the Act of 1876. He did not know why that should have been done; but it illustrated the inconvenience of legislating in this manner. There were other parts of the English Act, equally important, which were excluded from the operation of the Manchester Local Bill; and altogether he thought it would be far more convenient to deal with such important questions by general legislation. He had now stated very shortly the points to which he desired to call attention, for he felt bound to enter a protest against some of the conclusions to which the Committee had arrived. No doubt, it was a very thankless task he had undertaken; but he should regret to see any other hon. Member, who had, from a sense of public duty, to undertake a similar task, received with so many interruptions by those in the House who took more interest in the questions which were to follow. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment—
  1570
  "That it is inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Accrington Improvement Bill, or any of those included in the Reference to the Committee on Sanitary and Police Clauses of March 13th 1882, unless such portions thereof as create local Sanitary or Police Law exceptional to the Law of the Realm be omitted therefrom."
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the House is now considering the Blackburn Improvement Bill, whereas he has been speaking of the Accrington Improvement Bill.
  MR. BRIGGSwished to know if the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was entitled to take a vote of the House upon the Blackburn Improvement Bill, seeing that the greater part of his remarks were not relevant to the Blackburn Bill at all?
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, the Amendment he proposed to move was a comprehensive one, and included all the Improvement Bills, of which the Blackburn was one, which stood for consideration upon the Paper. He had risen the moment these Bills were called on, and if the Accrington Bill had been passed, it was because his opposing voice had not reached the Chair, and he had understood that he was making his observations upon the Accrington Bill. He was certainly in his place before any Private Bills were taken at all; and he thought that the House generally, from the terms of his Amendment upon the Paper, was fully aware of what his intentions were. He would, however, if the Accrington Bill had already been disposed of, substitute the Blackburn Improvement Bill, which stood next on the list.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand, from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, what Amendment it is, precisely, that he proposes to move.
  MR. HOPWOODreferred to the Amendment itself upon the Paper, and he proposed to move that it was inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Blackburn Improvement Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would put the Amendment accordingly.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Improvement Bills, or any of them, included in the Reference to the Committee on Sanitary and Police Clauses of March

  1571
  13th 1882, unless such portions thereof as create local Sanitary or Police Law exceptional to the Law of the Realm he omitted therefrom."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) complained that he had undertaken a thankless task in asking the House to reject these Bills; but the hon. and learned Member would remember that the House was much obliged to him three months ago, when he first raised this very important subject. At the hon. and learned Member's instance, the House relegated the whole of these Bills to a Select Committee appointed in a peculiar way. That Committee had taken evidence, and had considered the Bills with great care and attention, having perfect freedom to deal with them under the direction of the House. They had so dealt with them, and, according to the admission of the hon. and learned Member, they had done good service by striking out a great deal of objectionable matter. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done well if he had refrained from opposing these Bills on the present occasion, especially seeing the indisposition of the House to re-open the question. It was to be presumed that hon. Members interested in the subject had read the Report of the Committee. That Report was extremely clear, and it laid down propositions which he thought would be supported by the House; but if all the result of their labours was to be rejected, upon the floor of the House, after half-an-hour's discussion, it would be very difficult in future to get Committees to undertake these laborious duties. He submitted to the House that they should now allow these Bills to go forward. Considering that the attention of the House had been called to them, and that they had already been cut down from the shape in which they were originally presented, and that certain provisions, which had excited a good deal of observation and opposition, had been struck out of them, the Report of the Committee should receive the sanction of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that the Committee should advise the House as to the manner in which they had dealt with all
  1572
  the questions submitted to them. For his own part, he did not think that that was the duty of the Committee. The Committee had made certain recommendations, and he should be prepared—if no other hon. Member did it—after the close of the debate to give Notice of a Resolution, in the shape of a Standing Order, to carry out in future years the same policy which had been adopted this year in regard to the present Bills. He would suggest that the precedent Parliament had established in regard to the important Private Bills submitted to the Select Committee during the present Session should hereafter be adopted in regard to all similar measures. He was satisfied that great good had resulted from the labours of the Committee, although he did not expect that every hon. Member would be satisfied. Some hon. Members would think the Committee had done too much; while other hon. Members would think they had done too little. What he contended was that the House was not in a position to do justice to the important questions contained in the Report of the Committee. They ought, therefore, to allow the Bills to go forward, in order that they might be sent up to the House of Lords, where there would be another opportunity of re-examining them.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was scarcely reasonable in putting half-a-dozen Bills together, and asking the House to vote "Aye" or "No" upon the whole half-dozen. It was quite clear that many hon. Gentlemen might approve of one Bill and dissent altogether from another. It seemed to him that it was absolutely impossible to vote at one time upon half-a-dozen separate Bills. Personally, he had only one word to say in respect to the Manchester Bill. He understood that that Bill was objected to on account of clauses which dealt with the hours of labour of young children in the streets at night. There was a very strong feeling in Manchester on that point, and he believed the hon. and learned Member would admit that there was nothing in the Bill, as it stood originally, of an exceptional character in regard to the law of the Realm. There was nothing novel in it, and nothing that could not be perfectly well understood. He, therefore, thought

  1573
  it was scarcely reasonable that a Bill of so much importance as the Manchester Corporation Bill should be rejected, because it limited the hours of labour of young children in the streets, and he trusted that the Bill would receive the support of the House.
  MR. PUGHbegged to move that the debate now adjourned. It was quite clear, from the statement of his hon. and and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who moved the Amendment, and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), that the questions involved in the consideration of the Bill were of the utmost importance, and it was also clear that there was an indisposition on the part of the House to enter into a debate of that kind at the present moment. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Pugh.)
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the House would recollect that when these Bills were referred to a Select Committee, of which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was Chairman, it knew that it was imposing upon that Committee a formidable and onerous task. He was quite sure the House would agree with him, when he added that the Committee had performed that task in an admirable manner, and that they were entitled to the thanks of the House. After the great labour of the Committee, he trusted the House would support the Committee, and that, without any attempt to adjourn the debate, they would proceed at once to a decision. All these Bills had received an unusually full and careful consideration. He knew of no Committee to which Private Bills had been referred, except, perhaps, the Committee upon the Electric Lighting Bill, which had given the matter referred to it so much exhaustive attention. He, therefore, trusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Pugh) would not press the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, on the part of the Local Government Board, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the Committee for the labour they had bestowed upon these Bills; and, in doing so, he wished
  1574
  to point out that the objections raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) upon the clauses contained in the Bills would apply to similar clauses which now existed in Acts of Parliament relating to 23 of the largest towns of the country. He thought if his hon. and learned Friend had inquired, he would have found that the clauses, to which he so strongly objected, had given great satisfaction in the towns to which they had already been applied. He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend would find that a single Petition had been presented against the proposed clauses; on the contrary, he (Mr. Hibbert) held in his hand Reports from 23 towns, and, in almost every case, the strongest opinion was expressed as to the satisfactory working of these Acts. There was a general concurrence of opinion that they tended very much to prevent the spread of disease; and he knew, further, that it was from the knowledge gained of the working of these Acts in these 23 towns that other towns were anxious to have similar provisions. His hon. and learned Friend said they ought to wait until Parliament could pass some satisfactory general law; but they knew what the difficulty was of getting any legislation at all through that House; and he thought that after the trouble bestowed by the Select Committee, it would be most undesirable to throw the whole of their labours away by refusing to adopt their Report.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he agreed with the spirit of the Amendment, although the town he represented was one of the places which had a Bill included in the Resolution. At the same time, he believed it would be very inconvenient to delay the passing of that Bill, which proposed to carry into effect very considerable local improvements in reference to parks and other matters. Nevertheless, he was in entire sympathy with the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, that it was undesirable, under cover of Local Bills, to bring forward general legislation. But the point they had to consider here was, how they could possibly obtain a discussion of these Bills? He thought it would take as long as the discussion upon an Irish Coercion Bill. The Bills themselves

  1575
  raised all sorts of questions, and in a case of such importance, involving many details, he thought his hon. and learned Friend should be satisfied with lodging his protest against what had been done, and taking reasonable means in future to secure the end he had in view. It must be borne in mind that all parties concerned in these Bills would have an opportunity, in "another place," of raising the points in dispute, and probably they might be able to secure an alteration in regard to some of them.
  MR. PUGHsaid, that under the circumstances, and trusting that the discussion would not be continued at any length, he would withdraw the Motion he had made.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he fully felt the force of the appeal which had been made to him, and he had no desire to waste the time of the House, although he knew very well that the subject was capable of a great deal more being said upon it than had already been said. As he had been allowed to make a protest against the provisions contained in most of these Bills, and as he knew that the House desired to proceed to other Business, he would now withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate must first be withdrawn.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he had already intimated his willingness to withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I will now withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered; to be read the third time.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered,"—(Sir Charles Forster,)—put, and agreed to.
    MR. ARMITAGEmoved, as an Amendment, in Clause 38, page 20, line 26, after the word "child," to insert the words—
    1576
    "Under the age of ten years shall he employed in any casual employment within the city and no child who is above the age of ten years hut."
    He was aware that it was an unusual course to seek to modify or add to the terms of a Bill after it had received the careful attention of a Select Committee; but he hoped it would be felt that he was justified in attempting to do so on the present occasion, when he reminded the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Select Committee (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and his Colleagues, and the House itself, of the groat interest taken in this question by the public of Manchester, and also the neighbouring Borough of Salford, which he (Mr. Armitage) represented, and of the disappointment which was felt on learning that certain words in a clause of this Bill, which were considered to be most essential, were in danger of being excluded. Among a great variety of questions which were included in this very comprehensive and useful Bill of the Manchester Corporation, there was one which dealt with the seriously growing evil of the employment in the streets of young children of what was commonly called the "Street Arab class." To make the House more fully familiar with the case, he might explain that children over 14 years of age would not be at all affected by the proposed Bill, for they were free from any obligation to attend school, and were not liable to any regulations in respect to the Factory Act. There remained, then, the children under 14 years of age, who were proposed by the Bill promoted by the Manchester Corporation to be divided into two classes, and dealt with as follows:—First, the children between 10 and 14 years of age were to be allowed to follow the employment referred to till 7 o'clock in the winter months—say, from October 1st until April 1st, and until 9 o'clock in the summer months—say, from April 1st until October 1st, without any conditions at all. But to entitle them to exceed these hours, and to work until any hour at night they pleased, it would be necessary that they should pass a certain educational test. This portion of the clause the Select Committee had agreed to. Secondly, it was sought to forbid children of more tender age—namely, of less than 10 years—from following this street employment altogether; and

    1577
    it was because the Select Committee had struck out this portion of the clause that he proposed to move an Amendment to reinstate the conditions in the Bill. The elimination of these words from the clause would allow these young children, who were often, as a matter of fact, as young as seven or eight years, to continue to follow this mischievous practice on precisely the same conditions as children of more advanced age. He took this to be a very great hardship upon children of tender age themselves. Perhaps it was considered that it would serve as a sufficient hindrance to the employment of the younger children if they were required to pass such an examination as applied to the elder ones; but, if even that were so, they were free to be so employed until 7 o'clock in the winter, and 9 o'clock in the summer months, under any circumstances. He rested his case, however, in respect to these younger children, not on the ground of their being able to pass an educational test, which he found some were able to do, but simply on the ground of their being so very young. He held that it was only right that they should be subject to the same beneficent regulations as applied to employment in factories and workshops. In reply to the argument that the earnings of the children might be required for the maintenance of themselves, or of other members of the family, he was able to state, on the authority of Dr. John Watts, the Chairman of the Industrial Schools Committee of the Manchester School Board, that, having investigated the circumstances of a large number of children who were following this street employment, it was found that only one-third of them belonged to families who were below the poverty scale of the School Board. That proved that two-thirds of the parents of these children were comparatively independent, and were, therefore, unnecessarily subjecting their children to this very great hardship. Rather than do this in instances where the family was exceedingly poor, he would prefer to relieve them out of the public rates. It should be remembered that the children were not learning any suitable and profitable employment that would be useful to them in later years; but, surrounded as they were by evil associations, they were acquiring habits which would, in all probability, bring them ultimately
    1578
    into the hands of the magistrate and the gaoler. Factory legislation was found to be necessary to guard children against the frequent cupidity and cruelty of parents. He was himself connected with a large manufacturing industry, and he could speak from his own personal knowledge of the number of cases which continually came under his notice, where the parents of the children represented them of an older age than they actually were, in order that they might pass the factory inspection, and be qualified to work in the mills. If legislation were necessary and needful for the protection of children who worked in the mills, where they were sheltered and cared for by Government inspection, how much more was it needful in the case of children who were exposed to the vicissitudes of the weather, and the degradation of street life and evil associations? The experience which had been gained by the various benevolent societies of the town during several years had so guided and matured public opinion, and the authorities had on several occasions addressed the late and present Government, both by memorials and deputations, on the subject, urging upon Her Majesty's Ministers that nothing less than legislation in the matter would suffice. The representations made were to the effect that the offence did not come within the province of any existing law, and, therefore, could not be prevented by any present means. In March, 1880, a deputation waited upon the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and reminded him of the memorials which had been previously presented, asking for legislation. The deputation consisted of members of the Corporations of Manchester and Salford, and was supported by Magistrates, Guardians of the Poor, officers of the School Board, and persons connected with various benevolent societies. It had also the support and approval of the whole of the Members for Manchester and Salford, and no hon. Member had taken up the question more warmly than the hon. Member who sat on the other side of the House (Mr. Birley), who introduced the deputation to the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Mr. Armitage) only mentioned this circumstance to show that there was no Party feeling in the matter, but an absolute agreement of

    1579
    opinion. Two years ago a town meeting was held to take into consideration the treatment of juvenile offenders, and there was an entire concurrence in the views expressed that the very mischievous practice of sending them to prison should, as far as possible, cease. A resolution to that effect was passed, because it was felt that Industrial Schools and Reformatories for the constantly growing crop of juvenile offenders were the only alternative. This, however, -would not entirely stay the growth of the evil, which arose, in a great measure, from the prevalence of street hawking. It was shown that last year more than one-half of the young persons who were admitted into the Industrial Schools of the Manchester School Board had been so employed, and only 17 per cent had come from families of good repute. This proved clearly that the close connection between the employment now complained of and the increase of crime could not be ignored. It should be borne in mind that an Act of the same kind was at present in force in Glasgow, and they had a report from the police authorities of Glasgow of the beneficial results arising from its operation in that city. He would conclude by expressing his thanks for the attention and patience with which a large portion of the House had listened to his remarks, and by moving to reinstate the words in the clause as they originally stood in the Bill of the Manchester Corporation. He invited the approval and support of the House.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT,in seconding the Amendment, said, he had no wish to detain the House further than to corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Armitage) as to the overwhelming strength of opinion in Manchester in favour of the Amendment—namely, that young children under the age of 10 years should not be allowed to be employed in the streets. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) said that was the general law already. If it were the general law, it would not do much harm to introduce it into this Bill. Men of every creed and Party in Manchester were anxious to have the Amendment made, and the hon. Members who represented Manchester in that House would be glad if the House could see its way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 38, page 20, line 26, after the word "child," to insert the words "under the age of ten years shall he employed in any casual employment within the city and no child who is above the age of ten years but."—(Mr. Armitage.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, ho was quite aware, and the Select Committee was equally aware, of the great desire which prevailed in certain quarters of Manchester that this clause, in its full integrity, should have been incorporated in the Bill. But he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Armitage) and the House that the Committee felt so strongly on the subject that they would have preferred to strike out the whole clause rather than sanction it in the form in which it was originally proposed to be inserted in the Bill. No doubt, the clause was copied from a Scotch Act; but if the House was of opinion that a further restriction should be placed upon juvenile labour to this extent, then let it be made applicable to the whole of England, as well as to Scotland; but let the provision be a general one. There did not appear to be any desire that this particular restriction on the labour of children under 10 years of age—children employed in selling newspapers in the streets—should be applied to London, or to the large towns generally. It was only in Manchester that there was any feeling in the matter. The Select Committee had supported the clause in so far as it dealt with children who ought to be at school; but they thought it was not desirable to assent to any further restriction. It was quite sufficient to provide that when children were under school age, they should not be allowed to engage in this casual employment after certain hours in the evening. As he had already stated, the clause, as originally proposed by the Corporation of Manchester, was taken from a Scotch Act; but he must say that the evidence adduced before the Committee as to the working of the provision in Scotland was of the most meagre description. The clause appeared to have been confined to Glasgow; and in regard to its working in Glasgow there was very little evidence indeed. He might remind the House that the whole of this matter could be reconsidered in "another place;" and he did not think the

    1581
    present was a proper time for going into it. A very strong objection was entertained against the clause, as it originally stood; and he believed the Bill, in its present form, contained all that could reasonably be demanded from Parliament. Indeed, as the clause now stood in the Bill, the Committee had felt a great deal of hesitation in passing it. What was now proposed would take away the means of livelihood from a large class. It would be better to strike out the whole clause than to accept the Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not assent to the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill to be read the third time.

NOTICES.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE.
  MR. M'COAN,having given Notice that he would to-morrow ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Edward Malet has been instructed to take any, and what, steps to exact punishment and reparation for the murder of the British subjects killed in Alexandria during the riot of the 11th instant; and whether any provision, beyond the stationing of a gun-boat at either end of the channel, has been made, or is contemplated, for the protection of the Suez Canal; and, also, whether Sir Edward Malet has been any party to the arrangement under which Ragheb Pasha has formed a new Egyptian Ministry, in which Arabi Pasha remains Minister of War; and, whether, in view of the recent Anglo-French Note demanding the removal of Arabi from Office, and his exile from Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will recognize any Ministry of which he still forms a part?
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that he would ask, with reference to the last Notice, What right Her Majesty's Government have to interfere with the Egyptian Ministry?
  MR. O'KELLYgave Notice that he would to - morrow renew his previous Question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, unless the hon. Baronet could answer it then—namely, Whether the list of those killed in the
  1582
  disturbances at Alexandria was complete as regarded British subjects?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) asks me a mere question of fact, and I will answer it now. The Question was asked previously, and, therefore, it is equivalent to Notice. In answer to it, I have stated that six British subjects have been killed. In addition to these, two Maltese, who were also British subjects, have been killed. I will take this opportunity of stating that I have tried to give the House the latest possible information by answering Questions of fact without Notice; but that course of procedure has produced so large an increase in the number of Questions put, and so much inconvenience and loss of time, that I propose in future, under no circumstances, to answer any Question whatever without full Notice.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, The number of punishments for drunkenness, or for offences arising out of drunkenness, in the Army during the year 1881; and, if it is true that in the Recruiting Circular recently issued through the Post Office, four special advantages are offered to soldiers enlisting, one of which is that "Beer may be obtained from the Regimental Canteens at very low rates?"
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN),in reply, said, that the total number of punishments inflicted on soldiers for drunkenness by court martial and by commanding officers in 1881 was 43,606. The total number of individuals so punished during the same period was 23,255. That number, he was sorry to say, was somewhat in excess in each case of the numbers returned for the year 1880, though very considerably less than the average for the last 10 years. As to the number of punishments for crimes arising out of drunkenness in the Army during the same period, he regretted that he was quite unable to give it, as there was no separate record kept of such offences, and it would be exceedingly difficult to make out such a record; but he might say that, as in the case of civilians, a very large proportion of the crimes of

  1583
  violence and insubordination committed by soldiers were committed by them while under the influence of drink. As to the second part of the Question of his hon. Friend, it was quite true that the purchase of beer, tobacco, &c, from the regimental canteen at low rates, together with other privileges, such as the use of a library, recreation room, and gymnasium, were offered as inducements to recruits to enlist by the Post Office Circular referred to in the Question; but he might say that the beer so supplied was of a very wholesome quality, and cases of drunkenness arising from its consumption were most rare; in fact, almost unknown. He would add that no spirits were sold in canteens at all, and he thought he might say that the real cause of drunkenness in the Army was certainly not the beer sold in the canteens, but the abominable stuff which soldiers obtained, under the name of spirits, in the low public-houses in the neighbourhood of their barracks, and for which the beer was intended, as far as possible, to be a substitute.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION AT AMAGARRA (CO. CORK).
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that there have been six police stationed at a place called Amagarra, Ballylanders, county Cork, for a considerable time; and, whether there have been any outrages committed near the place; if not, what is the reason that the police continue to be stationed there, and upon whom their maintenance is charged?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, a protection post was formed a short time ago at Amagarra, County Cork, on account of certain outrages that had been committed in the neighbourhood. There are five police stationed there, but there is no extra expense occasioned thereby, as they are charged for as other men of the county force.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. H. A. BLAKE, R.M.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. H. A. Blake, R.M. is the same person as the Mr. Blake, who was charged with taking forcible possession of a house at Carrigbarahane; whether
  1584
  Mr. Blake was summoned to the Petty Sessions at Stradbally therefor; whether it was alleged that a revolver was presented at the caretaker; and that he was also assaulted; if a copy of the evidence taken at the time can be laid before the House; and, whether Mr. Blake will have any special powers under the Crime Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the matter to which the hon. Member refers related to a private and family affair, and is such as most certainly does not call for the cognizance of the House. I have frequently, in the course of the debates, stated the position which special Resident Magistrates will hold under the Prevention of Crime Bill. They will not have judicial authority.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, If proceedings between landlord and tenant could be of a private character; and, whether a man who took forcible possession in the way indicated, and who presented a revolver at the head of the caretaker, was a proper person to occupy the position of Resident Magistrate under the Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he would not enter into the question as to whether Mr. Blake did or did not take possession in the manner stated, and would merely state to the House that the circumstances of the case were not of a nature, as he thought the House would acknowledge, of which they could take cognizance.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had received a letter from Mr. Blake, giving a total denial to the circumstance, as stated by the hon. Member, of the use of a revolver.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE SURVEILLANCE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the "Belfast Morning News" of June 9th, to the effect that the police at Castleblayney have for some days past been perpetually watching a local contractor; that a constable remains at his side during his working hours, and afterwards hovers about his residence; and, if he can state the object of this surveillance, and by whom and for what object it has been directed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is quite true that the police have been carefully watching the person referred to; but I must decline in the public interest to say upon what grounds they are doing so.

  NEW ZEALAND—TE WHITI, THE MAORI CHIEF.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any recent information as to the intentions of the New Zealand authorities with regard to Te Whiti, the Maori Chief, who has been lying in prison for several months past on a charge of sedition; and, whether they have considered the expediency of offering their good offices to the Colonial Government to settle the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast?
  MR. BROGDENalso asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will furnish to the House the Papers relating to the late proceedings with the Native Maori Tribes at Parihaki, in New Zealand, and the arrest of Te Whiti and others; and, if the speech of the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, at the opening of the Assembly in May last, announced the fact that an Act would be applied for to enable the Government of New Zealand to continue to detain him without his being tried or convicted of any offence?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the Colonial Office has received no official information as to the dealings of the New Zealand Government with the Maori Chief, Te Whiti, later than the Report which informed them that he had been committed to gaol on a charge of sedition in last December. Her Majesty's Government do not think it advisable to offer any intervention in the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast. Those questions lie entirely within the province of the Colonial Parliament and the Colonial Government. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), I have to say that we have not received the text of the Governor's speech; but the Press telegram, which is all that has arrived, indicates that the course contemplated is not continued detention of Te Whiti in prison, but only prohibition to visit and agitate a particular district. Papers will be given, if the hon. Mem-
  1586
  ber presses for them; but there must be some delay till the arrival of the documents from New Zealand, which will make the action of the New Zealand Government fully understood, and the Government would rather wait until that information comes to hand.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, OLDHAM.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware of a communication having been addressed to the Education Department by the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools, Oldham, setting forth objections to the erection of a School Board in close proximity to their schools; whether he is aware that the Department promised that these objections would be considered when the Oldham School Board applied for permission to erect such school; and, whether he is aware that the Department have since authorised the Board to purchase the site; and, if so, what are the reasons that induced the Department to give such authority in the face of the objections lodged by the managers of St. Mary's Schools?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I am acquainted with the correspondence which has passed between the Education Department and the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools at Oldham, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the remonstrances of the managers have had my careful consideration. The St. Mary's Roman Catholic School supplies the requirements, not only of its immediate neighbourhood, but of numbers of Roman Catholic children resident elsewhere. Of two schools quoted in the manager's letter, one provides no infant accommodation whatever, and the premises of the other are not such as can be recognized as efficient. Without reckoning these schools, there is an undoubted deficiency, and both Her Majesty's Inspector and the Board consider that a school is urgently required in this district.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PATRICK SLATTERY.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  1587
  land, If the attention of His Excellency has been directed to the case of Patrick Slattery, who has been in prison since the 25th of July last year, on suspicion of being concerned in an unlawful assembly at Bodyke, on the 1st of June preceding; whether Patrick Slattery is the witness who, at the investigation into the death of John Moloney at Bodyke, on the said 1st of June, identified a sub-constable named O'Grady as having struck the deceased man two blows on the head with the butt end of his rifle; whether the arrest of Patrick Slattery did not take place until after his evidence against the sub-constable; whether Patrick Slattery is an American citizen, and whether he was offered his liberty on the 24th of April last on condition of his at once leaving the Country and returning to the United States; and, whether any sufficient reason exists for his continued detention in prison on any charge?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the offence for which Patrick Slattery was arrested was that of being reasonably suspected of riot, and shooting with intent to murder. The riot, which took place on the 1st of June, was a most serious one; the police were fired on, and the County Inspector's horse was shot. The circumstances otherwise are as detailed in the Question. He is a naturalized American citizen, and has been offered his release upon condition of his leaving Ireland and returning at once to America; but that condition has been objected to, and His Excellency cannot at present permit him to be at large in Ireland.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he still wished to know if it was not a fact that Slattery's arrest did not take place until after he had identified a constable as having struck a man, who died, twice with the butt end of his gun?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that he had already answered the Question. Patrick Slattery was arrested be-cause he was reasonably suspected of being a principal in a most dangerous riot.
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice of his intention of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he was not arrested at the instance and upon the identification of the colleagues of the policeman?

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, SECTION 21—"SULLIVAN v. BOWEN."
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Sullivan v. Bowen. lately decided by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in which that tribunal decided (reversing the judgment of the Irish Land Commission) that a tenant's application under the 21st section of the Irish Land Act, to break a lease forced on him by threat of eviction should be dismissed on the ground that, at the date when the lease was forced on the tenant, the notice to quit served on him as a preliminary to eviction had expired, and thus determined the yearly tenancy under which he had previously held, and that, therefore, one of the elements necessary for the success of a lease-breaking application, viz. the existence of a yearly tenancy at the date of the acceptance of the lease, did not exist in the case; whether, having regard to this further evidence of the failure of section 21 of the Land Act, he can state the intentions of the Government as regards the amendment of this section; and, whether he will have any objection to the granting of a Return setting forth the number of lease-breaking eases actually adjudicated upon by the Land Commission, the result of each case, and as regards cases in which the tenant's application was dismissed, showing in each case which of the three elements necessary for the success of such an application under the section as it stands, viz.: (a) existence of a yearly tenancy at date when lease was accepted; (b) threat of eviction or undue influence by landlord; and (c) existence in lease of unreasonable terms, was wanting, so as to cause the dismissal of the application?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as I have obtained a Report from the Land Commissioners dealing with the matters of fact referred to in this Question, I may, perhaps, be permitted to answer it. With regard to the first paragraph of the Question, it is the case that a judgment of the Irish Land Commissioners was reversed by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland as detailed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, the Return could not be given. If it were granted, it would im-

  1589
  pose on the Judicial Commissioner the necessity for perusing the notes in every one of the 600 or 700 cases which have been heard. The duties which he has to discharge render his doing so a physical impossibility. I will, however, look into the question further, and see if the Return can be given in a somewhat different form. The second paragraph of the Question deals with a matter of policy, upon which I cannot give the hon. Member any information.
  Mr. HEALYhaving subsequently repeated the Question, and addressed it again to the Prime Minister,
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. Probably I failed to make myself understood on a former day; but I may now state that the question of the Lease Clauses was one of those I had in view, when I said that, at a certain time, the Government would think it right to state their intentions with respect to various points of importance connected with the Land Act. These points are the Purchase Clauses, the Lease Clauses, and the Clauses with respect to Labourers. I do not, however, think it would be of any advantage to make a statement on the subject, until we see our way to the conclusion of the proceedings connected with the two Bills now before the House—namely, the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Bill dealing with Arrears of Rent.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will include emigration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not in a position to say whether the Government will make any statement with regard to emigration.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—DEATH FROM EXPOSURE AT AN EVICTION AT RHODE, KING'S COUNTY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police, at Rhode, King's County, recently prevented by threats the erection of a hut, provided by the Ladies' Land League to shelter the family of an evicted labourer named Kavanagh; whether, in consequence of the conduct of the police, Kavanagh, his wife, and his children, who, as notified to the police, were ill of measles, had to avail themselves of the shelter of a shed or stable without door, window,
  1590
  or chimney, and have lived there for the last fortnight; whether the result has been that exposure has caused the death of one of the children, and that another is now lying at the point of death; whether the coroner of Queen's County, in accordance with the Law, issued his precept to the police directing them to provide a jury to inquire into the death of the child, and giving them twenty-eight hours' notice for the purpose; whether the police disregarded the precept, and failed to provide the jury, in consequence of which no inquest has yet been held; and, whether the Executive will take notice of the conduct of the police, and institute further action in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he had just received a voluminous telegram from Ireland in relation to the matter, and he was anxious to look over it carefully, as it touched the conduct of several Government officials. He would answer the hon. Member to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—VOTE OF COMPENSATION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a proportionate share of the moneys voted by Parliament to the Royal Irish Constabulary in compensation for loss and hardship in connection with special service since the year 1879, will be paid to those members of the force who served during the years 1879 and 1880, but who happened to have left the force previous to the introduction of the Compensation Vote in Parliament; and, whether it is not the fact that many members of the force who had to retire from various causes since January 1881 suffered severe pecuniary loss and injury to health in connection with the exceptional service in the years 1879 and 1880?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the grant of £180,000 referred to will be confined to members of the Force who were serving in the Force on the 24th of April last. It is probably the fact that many members of the Force who had retired prior to that date did suffer pecuniary loss and injury to health; but their cases have been disposed of when they retired on pension or gratuity, and cannot now be re-opened.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE-QUESTIONS—RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL,in whose name the following Notice appeared on the Paper:—
  "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has any information as to the movements, since their release, of those suspected of crimes of violence, which would show whether they had or had not gone to reside in those neighbourhoods in which murders have been committed since their release;"
  said, that before he put his Question he wished to ask the Speaker's direction on a point of Order. That Question had undergone very severe expurgation at the Table. As originally handed in by him, it was in these terms. He proposed to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, How he reconciled the release from prison of John Ryan and Michael M'Sweeney, who had been arrested on suspicion of murder, with the assurance which he had given on the 8th of May that none of the "suspects" who had been charged with murder would be released? The point he desired to submit to the Speaker was, how an hon. Member was to proceed when he wished for information on a Question, an answer in reference to which given by the Representative of a Department in the House was at variance with a statement in the printed Papers published by that Department?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he thought the course taken by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was rather an unfair one. The first form in which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had seen the Question was the form in which it appeared on the Paper. He thought the usual course in a case of the kind was first to inquire privately whether there was any alteration in the Question. ["No, no!"] Ho had not been a party to any alteration of the Question.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was not bound to answer any Question other than that on the Paper, unless he desired so to do. With regard to the point of Order, no doubt certain expressions might, and had been struck out of the Question by the Clerk at the Table, because they involved matter of controversy and might
  1592
  cause debate. If anything was imported into a Question which necessarily must lead to debate, or involved such debate, that part of the Question was properly struck out. He apprehended the hon. Member had been informed of it.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have been informed of it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it would not be desirable to make an arrangement for some information to be given to hon. Members where they inadvertently and unwittingly offended against this unwritten law as regarded putting down Questions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether there was any appeal from the decision of the Clerk at the Table?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was an appeal, no doubt, to the Chair.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in explanation to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that I gave public Notice on Thursday last of the Question, in the terms in which I put it on the Table. I would now ask, whether I would be in Order, on a future occasion, in asking the right hon. Gentleman, if he adheres to the statement made in answer to a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), that no men charged with murder were released during the month of May, in face of the fact that John Ryan and Michael M'Sweeney were so released?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet puts a Question to me on a matter which has not yet arisen. I am bound to say that I can assure the hon. Baronet and the House that I have quite enough to do to answer Questions upon points of Order when they arise; and now the hon. Baronet puts to me a hypothetical Question, which I must decline to answer.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I was not aware that the hon. Baronet had given me Notice. I have felt rather keenly the reflection implied by the Question of the hon. Baronet, as I always try to be accurate in answering Questions, and more so, as regards this one, as it is a somewhat serious one. With regard to the Question on the Paper, if I may assume that it is confined to the case of prisoners released by the present Lord

  1593
  Lieutenant since he assumed Office, my answer is simply that the murder of Mr. Bourke in the Gort district, County Gal-way, is the only murder that has taken place since His Excellency released any prisoner, and that no prisoner from that district suspected of a crime of violence has been released.

  NAVY—THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the Mediterranean Squadron off Alexandria is not strengthened by such armour-clads as the "Audacious," "Defence," "Penelope," and "Resistance," whose draught of water will permit them to enter that harbour, in addition to or in place of the "Alexandra," "Inflexible," "Superb," and "Temeraire," which draw too much water to leave it with certainty or safety?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I regret that I can make no other answer to the Question of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) than this—that the Admiralty are taking the steps which they consider best for the disposition of Her Majesty's Naval Forces in the Mediterranean, including Alexandria, and I must ask the House to allow me to decline entering into any particulars on the subject.

  NAVY—ENGINEER STUDENTS—H.M.S "MARLBOROUGH."
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the death of Robert Mills, an engineer student on board H.M.S. "Marlborough," at Portsmouth, from the results of a severe chill caught in the execution of his duty; and, whether it is intended to attach a medical officer to the "Marlborough," or to make any improved arrangement for the supervision of the health of the engineer students?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I regret to say that it is the case that Mr. Robert Mills, engineer student on board the Marlborough, died on the 24th of May, from acute and rapid congestion of the lungs, the result of a chill sustained on duty in the Sultan on the 22nd of May. Until the morning of the 24th, although showing some symptoms of ill-
  1594
  ness, he had been going about as usual. He was then seen by a medical officer, who placed him on the sick list, although the illness was not believed to be serious. In the evening he became worse, and, notwithstanding all that the doctor in attendance could do, rapidly succumbed to the disease. As the death was unusually sudden, an inquest was held, and the facts were fully investigated, with the result that the jury expressed an opinion that he had received all possible care. It was with great regret that the Admiralty learnt the melancholy and premature termination of this young student's career; but they do not see in the facts of the case any reason for attaching a special medical officer to the Marlborough, the duty being efficiently performed by one of the medical officers of the Asia, and the medical officers of the Yard.

  ARMY—LIEUTENANTS OF ARTILLERY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the increase of pay to lieutenants after joining their regiments is postponed in the case of the Artillery till after a period of three years' service, whereas a similar increase was made to lieutenants of the Line after a period of two years only; and, whether the Government will consider the expediency of placing the Artillery in this respect on a footing of equal advantage with the Line?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the reason is that before the 1st of July, 1881, a second lieutenant of the Line was entitled to his increase of pay after three years' service, or on promotion to the rank of lieutenant; whereas, in the Artillery, there were no second lieutenants, and the increase of pay to lieutenants was due after three years' service. The Warrant abolished second lieutenants, and made the rule for the Line the same as that for the Artillery; but, inasmuch as it was found that, on the average, promotions from second lieutenant to lieutenant took place in about two years, second lieutenants then serving in the Line were exceptionally granted this increase after two years. Lieutenants appointed on and after the 1st of July, 1881, will serve three years before their pay is increased.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE ARTIFICERS CORPS.
  MR. BOORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state what progress has been made in the formation of the new Corps of Ordnance Artificers, for which a sum of £4,800 is taken, for pay, in this year's Estimates; and, also, the number of men who have qualified, in accordance with the Deputy Adjutant General's Circular, dated the 16th May 1878; the number at present actually enrolled; and when he expects the corps will reach its full intended strength?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the arrangements made in 1878 for this corps were not entirely successful; indeed, only 12 men volunteered. A different system has now been adopted, and it is expected that the corps will be fully established during the current financial year.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons have been arrested under the Coercion Act of last year up to the fifteenth day of this month?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, 917 persons have been arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act up to the 15th instant. Of these 23 were arrested a second time.

  ARMY—SHOOTING AND DRIVING PRIZES, 1881.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If the shooting and driving prizes for 1881 have been paid to the Artillery; and, if he could manage that, for the future, these prizes should be paid when awarded?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have inquired into this matter, and I find that there has been this year a delay of an unusual character in issuing these prizes. The Order will appear in a few days, and I have given instructions that the prizes be in future years issued not later than in February.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MICHAEL M'QUEENY.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the place of residence of Michael M'Queeny, who was lately confined in Enniskillen Prison on reasonable suspicion of murder, and has lately been released, and what was the name of the person he was reasonably suspected of having murdered; and, if there is any intention of putting M'Queeny upon his trial, according to Law, for the offence of which he was suspected?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Michael M'Queeny's place of residence is Attygowlas, in the Boyle district, County Roscommon. I must decline to disclose the name of the person he was suspected of having murdered. As to the last paragraph of the Question, I must beg the noble Lord to put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am not aware that any information has been laid before me respecting this case.

  IRELAND—THE KILMAINHAM COMPACT—MR. YATES THOMPSON.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Yates Thompson ever visited Kilmainham Prison during the incarceration of the suspects either in his own or an assumed name; and, if so, was he in any way in communication with the Member for Cork or any of the other suspects, and on what dates? He said it had been his intention to withdraw the Question, as he had been credibly informed that the gentleman referred to had nothing to do with the matter. It was, however, only just and courteous to the gentleman that he (Mr. Elliot) should put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman, in order that he might give it an explicit and official denial, as he (Mr. Elliot) understood he desired to do.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is very handsome of him to accede to my desire. Mr. Yates Thompson is one of the oldest friends I have in the world, and I am anxious to read a few lines from the

  1597
  following letter, which I have received from him, dated June 16:—
  "Dear Trevelyan.—I see in The Times that you are to be questioned again this afternoon about my famous visit to Kilmainham. I should be much obliged if you would say in your answer that you have my authority for stating that I have not been in Ireland for the last 18 months, nor had any communication, verbal or otherwise, with any members of the Land League, or the Member for the City of Cork."

  PETROLEUM ACT (INDIA), 1881—STANDARD OF FLASHING POINT.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that the Petroleum Act of 1879 for the United Kingdom fixes the flashing point, for safety, at 73 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the same standard was adopted in the Indian Act of 1881; and if he intends to permit so low, or even, as is now proposed, a lower standard for a country where the mean temperature of the year is at least 25 degrees above that of this latitude, and the summer temperature for eight months often exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the standard of the Act of 1881 for the test of petroleum was fixed by the Indian Legislature after full consideration, and with the approval of the Secretary of State. There is not, and has never been, any proposal to permit that standard to be lowered.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JOHN RYAN.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the place of residence of John Ryan, a suspect, recently confined in Dundalk Gaol on reasonable suspicion of murder; what is the name of the murdered person; and, whether the murder took place in the neighbourhood where Ryan now resides?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, John Ryan is reported to me to reside in the town-land of Ballykeeran, parish of Lecker-rig, barony of Loughrea, county of Gal-way. Ryan was not confined, as stated in the Question, on reasonable suspicion of murder, but on reasonable suspicion of being accessory to murder. I must decline to give the further information asked for in the Question.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLE BYRNE.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an investigation was recently held in New Ross into charges made against Constable Thomas Byrne; and, whether the finding of the Court of Inquiry was not that Constable Byrne was not guilty; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for his immediate transfer to Monaghan?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; there was such an investigation. The constable was charged with neglect of duty. The Court considered that his fault arose from an error of judgment, and found him "Not Guilty." The Inspector General considered it necessary, for disciplinary and other reasons, to transfer him to another county. He was given his choice between three counties, and has chosen Kildare, to which he has been removed.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the great importance to the working classes of the new scheme with reference to Government Annuities and Insurance, which is embodied in the Bill of which he has given notice, and of the serious delay which may arise in bringing the scheme into operation if the consideration of the Bill be much longer postponed, he is able to state whether the Government propose to afford any, and what, facilities for the early discussion of the measure?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, he need scarcely assure the House that he should be very glad if an opportunity could be found for consideration of the Bill. In the existing condition of Business, however, he feared he must look rather to facilities being afforded by private Members than by the Government. At any rate, he felt there would be very little use in asking the Prime Minister to give him a day for the consideration of the Bill, or any special facilities at the present time. He was, however, in some hope that the private Members who had given Notice of opposition to the second reading of the Bill

  1599
  might afford facilities, and he had given private Notice to those hon. Members on Friday that he should make an appeal to them on the subject; and, with the permission of the Speaker, he would ask their indulgence for a single moment while he made that appeal. He based his appeal on this ground—that the Bill affected a great number of people, in bringing facilities before them for obtaining life insurances and obtaining annuities. It was the result of the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee; but the strongest ground of his appeal to the hon. Members who had to remove their blocking Notices was this—that the important change to be effected by the Bill was the linking of the annuity and the life insurance business with the Post Office Savings Bank. As he understood, that part of the Bill was unanimously accepted. The only point to which objection was taken was simply the limits of insurance and annuities, and he ventured to submit that that might be considered in Committee. One hon. Member who had given Notice of opposition to the Bill had most kindly said ho would remove his Notice. Ho referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur). He addressed a similar appeal to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), Wolverhampton (Mr. II. Fowler), and Bridport (Mr. Warton), and could say that if the second reading of the Bill were taken, he should spare no efforts to secure a proper discussion of the points to which they objected when the Bill should reach the Committee stage.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had no objection to the Bill, so far as it related to the alteration of the machinery of the Savings Bank. His only objection to the Bill was in respect to the limits of insurance—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is only with the indulgence of the House that the hon. Member can speak.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DETENTION OF PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can quote any provision of "The Protection of Person
  1600
  and Property (Ireland) Act" under which suspects can be retained in prison without regard to their own guilt or innocence, but on account of the alleged state of the districts in which they were originally arrested?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, a person reasonably suspected of having committed a crime in a proscribed district may be legally arrested and legally detained under the Act until the 30th of September, 1882. In determining whether the period of arrest can be abridged, the main consideration of the Lord Lieutenant is, whether a release will have a prejudicial effect or otherwise on the state of the district, and its actual state must be a most material ingredient in coming to a determination.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—THE DURBUNGHA RAJ.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, since he stated that Mr. M. Finucane, Bengal Civil Service, "bad never been manager of the Durbungha Raj," he has learned that Mr. Finucane appears in the India List for 1880 as assistant magistrate at Durbungha, in the India List for 1881 as "manager of the Durbungha Raj," and in the India List for 1882 as "manager of the Durbungha Raj;" whether be will inquire why the letter of resignation which Mr. Finucane addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Sir Ashley Eden, declining to carry out enhancements of rent on the estates of the Maharajah of Durbungha, cannot now be produced; whether he will inquire if the salary of Mr. Finucane, while attached to the administration of the Durbungha Raj, was 1,500 rupees a month; whether he will inquire if the salary of the relative of Sir Ashley Eden, appointed to the administration of the Durbungha Raj, is 2,000 rupees a month; whether Sir Ashley Eden is now a member of the India Council in London; and, whether he will inform the House the name of the Indian official on whose authority he stated that Mr. Finucane was never manager of the Durbungha Raj?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had had the facts relating to these appointments before him; and was satisfied that the statements contained in the Question were inaccurate, He had all the particulars of the ap-

  1601
  pointment of this gentleman; but he trusted the House would not consider it necessary for him to go into the details of dates and figures. If the hon. Member thought it worth while to raise the question on any fitting opportunity, he had no doubt he should be able to satisfy him that a former reply he had given the hon. Member on the subject was correct. As he had said before, nothing was known of the letter of resignation, and ho could not undertake to make inquiries with regard to a letter of the existence of which he knew nothing. By referring to the Returns the hon. Member would see what the salaries were.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he was prepared to accept the challenge of the noble Marquess on the very first opportunity he could give him.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS—BRITISH REFUGEES.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the refugees on board the ships provided by Her Majesty's Government are to be landed at any place they may select; and, whether, whilst on board, they are to pay for their own living?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, we have no doubt that Sir Beau-champ Seymour, in communication with the Consular authorities, is taking all necessary steps, and making the necessary arrangements in this matter; but we have no detailed information on the subject.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask what are those steps, particularly with regard to payments by refugees?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have already said that Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in communication with the Consular authorities, is the proper person to decide such questions, and although the hon. Member asked the same Question the other day, I cannot conceive that at this moment it would be desirable for us, when Sir Beauchamp Seymour is the responsible person, to trouble him with telegraphic inquiry on such a subject.
  MR. ONSLOW: As this is to a certain extent a financial Question, I shall repeat it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—EDMUND STEWART.
  MR. CORRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Edmund Stuart, a suspect confined in Clonmel Prison on the ground of shooting and hounding, has been lately released; and, if he is to be put on his trial for the offence with which he was charged?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Edmund Stewart was released on the 30th of May by order of the Lord Lieutenant. For an answer to the last part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): With respect to the latter part of the Question, I am unable to say whether this person was put upon his trial, because I cannot recollect whether the information was submitted to me or not. Until I have received intelligence respecting that, I cannot give an answer.

  PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)—LAND IMPROVEMENT LOANS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Sceretary to the Treasury, Whether he will give instructions to the Office of Public Works in Ireland not to press landlords who have not received their rents to pay immediately their instalments due for land improvement in Ireland; and, whether he is aware that that Department is now threatening legal proceedings against several landlords who have not received their rents, in respect of instalments only due last April?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Board of Works have already been authorized to act in the sense indicated in the Question of the right hon. and learned Gen-leman. I [have no knowledge of any cases in which legal proceedings have been taken in contravention of this order.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had seen letters threatening legal proceedings within the last few days.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would furnish him with details, he would make inquiries.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he should be glad to do so.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether, in deciding in this matter, account would be taken of those landlords having oppressed their tenants?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY—INSTRUCTION IN MILITARY TACTICS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If the recent experiment in giving Volunteer Captains and Field Officers instruction in Military tactics was a success, what numbers in Scotland and England respectively attended, what proportion passed, and what proportion passed with honours; and, if there is to be another opportunity for those who did not attend, or who failed to pass?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the papers of the Volunteer candidates for examination in tactics are only now being received, and as between 600 and 700 officers were examined, it will be some weeks before the results can be known. There will be further periodical opportunities for examination afforded to officers of the Auxiliary Forces.

  COOLIES (INDIAN)—EMIGRATION TO LA REUNION.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Coolie immigration from India to Reunion has been stopped; and, if so, will he state at what date the order of the Indian Government to that effect took effect?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, emigration from India to Reunion has not yet been stopped. There is nothing to be added to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) on the 23rd of May.

  THE ASSASSINATIONS IN THE PHCENIX PARK, DUBLIN—WITHDRAWAL OF THE POLICE PATROLS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose orders the patrols were withdrawn from Phoenix Park on May 6th, and in what way the Government have noticed the conduct of the person responsible?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there were no police patrols withdrawn from the
  1604
  Phœnix Park on the 6th of May. I have answered the general purport of this Question before, and I am sorry to have to revert to it again.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had listened with the greatest care to all the right hon. Gentleman's replies on this subject. His Question, to which he had not yet received a distinct answer, was, Whether there were ever, at any time, police patrols placed in Phoenix Park before the assassinations; whether those police patrols were withdrawn; and, if so, by whose authority they were withdrawn?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This is a matter in which the feelings of others are involved. I thought I had answered it fully before. Practically, the protection was withdrawn at the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) left Ireland. The effective protection was withdrawn then. I am sorry to have to repeat that which, I think, I indicated in a longer answer.
  MR. O'KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question—Who was responsible?
  MR. DILLONsaid, the subject was one which excited a good deal of interest in Dublin. It was not a question of general effective protection. But it was generally stated in Dublin that on the morning of that deplorable occurrence the police were removed from the Phoenix Park—that the Park was absolutely stripped of police to an extent previously unknown. What they wanted to know was, who ordered the police on that fatal morning to leave the Park?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made a careful inquiry into that point, and such was not the case. The police who were withdrawn were the police for the protection of the late Chief Secretary, while my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Dublin; and, as I explained to the House, my late lamented Predecessor had not sufficient protection taken for his safety. I gave two reasons, which weighed with the Lord Lieutenant in his consideration of this subject.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the late Mr. Burke, late Under Secretary, was also under special protection, and whether his special protection was also withdrawn; and, if so, by whose orders was the special protection withdrawn which had been given to the right hon. Member for Bradford?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The late lamented Mr. Burke was under special protection, or what he considered sufficient special protection, at the time of his death. I do not know what word to use; but he had escaped the protection of the police, who walked behind him, by his taking a car. The policeman who ought to have met him was diverted from his duty by a drunken person who came across his path. That drunken person has been traced, and it has been ascertained that he could not have been connected with the persons associated with the murder. Mr. Burke would have had a policeman walking behind him if he had not taken a car at the point he did. When at the Gough Memorial he got off, and joined Lord Frederick Cavendish.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN G. HELY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of Captain Gorges Hely, landlord of the townsland of Ballyonskill, in the county of Kilkenny, who, having been paid his rents by the solvent tenantry, in a great measure through the intervention of the local clergy, and upon an understanding that he would forbear as to those unable to meet their engagements, until an Arrears of Rent measure should be passed, has nevertheless, during the past week, proceeded with evictions of those tenantry so unable to pay; whether the Military and Civil Forces have been employed on several occasions at these evictions, although even the Conservative local organ testifies to the peaceable and orderly demeanour of the people of the locality as well as the evicted tenantry under the irritating circumstances of being deprived of their homes and of the crops recently sown in their holdings; and, whether the Government can take any action in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a telegram from the local Constabulary, stating that Captain Hely did not make any such undertaking as the Question states. On the 7th instant, he evicted nine tenants; but first offered liberal abatements—for example, in one case he offered to take six months' rent where four years' was due. Some of the evicted tenants have now paid, and
  1606
  have re-occupied their holdings. On the requisition of the Sub-Sheriff and Resident Magistrate, military and police protected the Sub-Sheriff and his bailiffs in the service of writ and eviction. The Government does not intend to take any action in the matter.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and Her Majesty's ships under his command, last Sunday, for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourish the belief that the repetition of such steps will be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of hostilities?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the despatch of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which will answer the first part of the Question, is on its way home. One preliminary despatch was received at the Admiralty this morning. With regard to the second, instructions have been sent, which, we believe, will meet the exigencies of the case. In the opinion of the Admiralty, however, it would not be right for me to state the purport of these instructions. Questions on this subject, strictly speaking, ought to be addressed to the Admiralty.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he would repeat his Question to-morrow.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can, without inconvenience, state what particular object or purpose Her Majesty's Government had in view in ordering the Fleet to Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware, when ordering the Fleet to Alexandria, that the depth of water on the bar was not such as would allow any other than the smaller vessels to enter the Port?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the object with which the Fleet was sent to Alexandria was stated by me on the 23rd ultimo. The second part of the Question should more properly be addressed to the Secrerary to the Admiralty; but the replies which have already been given in the House on the subject show that the statement now made is not correct.
  MR. MAC IVERwished to know whether he should be in Order in taking the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the inaccuracy of the replies on this subject of the hon. Baronet? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Rome to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the speech alleged to have been made in Rome by Signor Mancini on the 12th June, and in which the following passages occur:—
  "The policy of the Government could be summarized thus: To absolutely refuse armed intervention on the part of certain Powers, to favour the meeting of a Conference with a definite object. To affirm the competence of the European Concert to share in the final settlement…and, if armed intervention should become necessary, to give preference to that of Turkey as the lesser evil of the two…That the Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had hitherto acted in perfect union. He regarded that union as a happy one for Italy, and he hoped it would bring forth good results;"
  and, whether those communications, and any information with regard to the nature of that agreement, will be included in the Papers to be laid upon the Table?
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the British Representative at Rome has made any communications to Her Majesty's Government respecting the statements of Signor Mancini—
  "The policy of the Government could be sumn arized thus: To absolutely refuse assent to armed intervention on the part of certain Powers;"
  and again,
  "The Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had acted hitherto in perfect union;"
  and, if so, whether such communications will be printed with the Papers about to be laid upon the Table relating to Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in reply to the Questions of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), I must follow the usual course in declining to express any opinion with regard to statements made by the Ministers of foreign countries in foreign
  1608
  Assemblies. I may, however, state that both the hon. Members appear to quote from the same report, which is a very inaccurate one, of Signor Mancini's speech. We have an official report in Italian, of which an English summary will be included in the Papers to be laid before Parliament.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, 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. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the limits within which the discussions at the Conference ought to be confined when the Conference meets, they are limits marked out by the Egyptian Question. A great number of other questions have been suggested to be introduced to the Conference; but the condition of Egypt is the limit of discussion at the Conference. With regard to the bases, those bases are no further determined than is shown in the Correspondence of the Governments, and especially that between the Governments of England and France. They have frequently been described in this House as having for their object the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, with a due regard to the reasonable development of the institutions of that country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Question we should be very glad to have answered is this, Whether the limits within which the discussions are to be confined will be the limits of the Egyptian Question proper—that is, the condition of Egypt—or whether they will include any question as to the Suez Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I think the purpose for which the Conference is summoned is undoubtedly limited to the Egyptian Question proper.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could state to the House what are the "best means" (as stated in the House on Friday last) which the Government are taking for protecting British subjects in Egypt; and, whether the Government will make a full disclosure of their policy on matters relating to safety of British subjects as the best means of allaying the present exited feeling in that country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I can only repeat that very full instructions

  1609
  have been sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour within the last few days, which will, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, fully meet the exigencies of the case. I must also repeat that I believe it is the opinion of the Admiralty, who have sent these instructions, that it would not be proper to state their exact terms to the House just now.
  MR. ONSLOW: When were the instructions sent?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The latest instructions to Sir Beauchamp Seymour were sent either on Friday or Saturday. I saw them myself on Saturday.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, 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. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is no intention to deal with the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal. It would be outside the purposes of the Conference.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was anxious to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It related to the alleged separate action of the Consuls General of Germany and Austria in Egypt. He thought that, in view of that alleged separate action to which the newspaper accounts referred, it would be satisfactory if his hon. Friend could state, What was the attitude of the Governments of those two Consuls General?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, his right hon. Friend had given sufficiently long Notice to enable him to answer without breaking through the rules which he had laid down earlier in the evening. The answer would be best put by saying that the German Government yesterday accepted the invitation of England and France to the Conference, and that the Austrian Government accepted that invitation to-day. The Russian Government had previously accepted, and Italy had previously declared that she was ready to go with the other Powers. So that substantially the invitation of England and France had been accepted by all the Powers.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I understood that the Question of the right
  1610
  hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) was, whether Germany and Austria had pressed a Minister on the Khedive without consultation with the other Powers? I think we are entitled to know how far that is true; whether those two Consuls General acted without reference to the other Powers; and, whether in the face of their action, the European Concert is still maintained.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can give no further answer without Notice. ["Oh, oh!"] I have answered the Question of my right hon. Friend, it being strictly within the rule I laid down. ["No, no!"] Well, my right hon. Friend is of opinion that I have answered it. At any rate, his Question was, Whether, in face of the statements in the newspapers of the separate action of the Austrian and German Consuls General, I would give any information as to the attitude occupied by the Austrian and German Powers in Egypt? and I have stated, in answer, the acceptation of the Conference by those Powers.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Question I lately asked him, whether the Great Powers have assented to the exclusion of the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war from the subjects to be considered at the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, so far as the limited purpose of the Conference has entered into the preliminary declarations of the Great Powers, we believe it to be, and I think I may say we know it to be, undoubtedly as far as any positive evidence has gone, decided by all those Powers that the operation and the action of the Conference should be confined to the Egyptian Question, within the limits just now described by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote).

  EGYPT AND ITALY—CESSION OF ASSAB BAY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, With reference to the Green Book issued by the Italian Government on the 12th instant, from which it appears that, on the 16th September last, the British Embassy in Rome communicated a Despatch from Lord Granville proposing a Convention, to be negotiated under the auspices of England, of which the first Clause contained the formal recognition

  1611
  by Egypt and Turkey of Italy's Sovereignty over Assab Bay, and to the Bill introduced in the Italian Parliament on the same day by Signor Mancini, declaring Assab to be an Italian Colony, making it a free port, and giving the Italian Government the right of making concessions of land and concluding treaties with the neighbouring rulers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government regards Assab Bay as now belonging to Italy or to Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Papers about to be laid on the Table will show the view taken by Her Majsety's Government of this question. We have endeavoured to promote an agreement which would be advantageous to all parties; but it has not yet been accepted by the Egyptian Government.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the hon. Baronet to answer the last part of the Question. Did Assab Bay belong to Italy or Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Italian flag was hoisted in Assab Bay, as I have already frequently stated, in the month of January, 1880, by an Italian frigate and an Italian corvette. There has been no transfer of Sovereignty at Assab Bay, and the view Her Majesty's Government take of the present condition of affairs can only really be judged by reading the Papers.

  THE ROYAL MINT—PROFIT ON THE COINAGE OF SILVER.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequor, in view of the very large profit made by the Mint on the coinage of silver during 1881, amounting to £166,823 (after charging £46,000 to the account for loss on old silver coins), Whether he would keep the exceptionally large net gain from the Mint for 1881 in a "Suspense Account," excluding it and subsequent gains from the credit side of the National Finance Accounts until the Government has had time to consider what may fairly be done with these Mintage gains to meet, either wholly or partially, heavy impending losses to the community through the abrasion and deterioration of our gold currency?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I may say it is not a matter at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Treasury, it being provided by the existing Act of Parliament, under which the
  1612
  whole of the expenses of the coinage at the Mint are defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, that the receipts also shall be paid in full into the Exchequer, and carried to the credit of the Consolidated Fund.

  LAW AND POLICE—SEIZURE OF ARMS IN CLERKENWELL.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that on account of a leading article in The Times of to-day, reflecting on the conduct of the Department over which he had the honour to preside for some years, and containing statements which were entirely of a misleading character, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for War some Questions, of which had given him private Notice. The statement in The Times was—
  "When we remember that in l879 some 200,000 rifles were sold by the War Office, and, in spite of the protest of the then Irish Secretary, were allowed to find their way into Ireland, and that these very weapons are now in the hands of the miscreant bodies with which Ireland swarms, we may well doubt whether one landlord the less will be shot, or one official the less be struck down, in consequence of Saturday's seizure."
  He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman—First, Whether any arms at all were sold by the War Office in 1879; secondly, whether any sale of arms had taken place since the protest of the Irish Government was received at the War Office in July, 1879; and thirdly, with reference to the seizure of Saturday, whether he could state if the arms seized at Clerkenwell were manufactured by or for the Government?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that his two first Questions have been already answered, I think, satisfactorily; but, in order to relieve his mind, I will answer them again. No arms were sold by the War Office in 1879, and no arms have been sold since the objection made by the Irish Government in that year. The arms seized at Clerkenwell are in course of examination this day; but I have heard a few minutes ago, that none of them were manufactured either by or for the Government.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that in consequence of the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), and the answer given by the Secretary of State for War as to the sale of arms, he should ask, Why the Irish Government

  1613
  remonstrated in July 1879, respecting the sale of arms, if no arms had been sold; and, whether it was not the fact that a very unadvised and a very large sale of arms took place in 1879, under the auspices of the Conservative Government?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) makes a reference to the remonstrance addressed by the Irish Government to the War Office in 1879. I may say at once, without taking any further notice of the subject, that I did make a remonstrance against the sale by a private individual in Sheffield of some arms which bore the Government mark, and which had been previously in the possession of the military authorities. That was what the protest referred to.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any further information about the seizure of arms; and as there is considerable anxiety among the public as to the fact that only one person has been apprehended, whether he can explain how it came to pass that the police were unable to apprehend other persons concerned?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Substantially, I may say that the accounts in the newspapers are correct. A very large number of rifles and a great quantity of ammunition and revolvers were seized by the police. I do not, however, think it would be desirable that I should at present make any further statement on the subject. The person who was admittedly in custody of these arms was arrested; and what further information can be obtained with reference to those with whom he was connected I do not think it would be wise to communicate.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Prime Minister, Whether it was his intention to proceed to-morrow with the Motion in reference to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, of which he had given Notice; and, if so, whether he would give an explanation as regards the general Business.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it was in consequence of noticing a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman, and like-
  1614
  wise an observation of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that I postponed until to-morrow the Notice that I had given in the House; but I will, to-morrow, in making that Motion, state, as far as the actual condition of circumstances permits, what views the Government have in regard to the Business of the House. I shall only be able to do it in a form somewhat general tomorrow; but it will undoubtedly be made in a form more specific when we have made further progress.
  MR. HEALYasked the Prime Minister, Whether he intended to make his statement at a Morning Sitting, or at 4 o'clock.
  MR. GLADSTONEanswered, at a Morning Sitting.

  POST OFFICE—THE LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that the proposals made by the Postmaster General to the Treasury for increasing the pay of the letter carriers have been rejected, but that the right hon. Gentleman is still pressing for an equitable settlement of the question; and, if not, what delays the announcement of a decision so often promised and so anxiously expected?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the statement quoted by the hon. Member is inaccurate. The proposals which have been made and discussed included many details. Most of these have been settled; one or two are still pending, but an early decision may be looked for.

  EGYPT—SIR EDWARD MALET, CONSUL GENERAL.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have not given him Notice, but the propriety of answering which he will probably admit. It is, Whether the rumour, rather widely circulated yesterday, that Sir Edward Malat is seriously ill at Alexandria is correct?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am happy to say, Sir, that Sir Edward Malet is not seriously ill. He has a mild attack of fever, which will probably incapacitate him for work for about a week.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 1.57.]
(Secretary Sir William Harcoitrt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th June.]

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

PART III.

  GENERAL POWERS.
  Clause 9 (Arrest of strangers found under suspicious circumstances).
  DR. COMMINSsaid, there was a slight verbal error in the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name. It should read in this way—"In page 4, line 36, after the word 'if,' insert" at any time after one hour later than sunset and earlier than one hour before sunrise.'" The clause under discussion gave power to any constable to arrest any stranger under suspicious circumstances in a proclaimed district, and bring him before a Justice of the Peace. Ho (Dr. Commins) thought the clause was too wide and might be very considerably abused, and he saw no reason why the powers given in the clause should be any more extensive than those which were given in the 8th clause as to the arrest of persons found at night under suspicious circumstances. By the present clause, the power proposed to be given was likely to give rise to a great deal of vexation, annoyance, and trouble, particularly during the summer months. They all knew that Ireland was very much resorted to by tourists in the summer months.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: That used to be the case, but it is not so now.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he had no doubt that tourists would be well able to take care of themselves; but the police-constables, under this clause, might render it almost practically impossible for any person to visit Ireland who was either a tourist or anything else. It would be very inconvenient to require every man to watch the sun, and get indoors imme-
  1616
  diately after sunset. He thought it would be quite sufficient if power were given to stop persons who might be out of their hotels within the same hours as those specified in Clause 8—namely, one hour later than sunset and an hour before sunrise. There was another reason for restricting the power proposed to be obtained by the Government. Hon. Members were aware that an Exhibition of Irish Industry was to be held in Dublin in the autumn, and it was expected that a large number of people from England, from America, and from other parts of the world would visit that Exhibition. Such persons were not likely to be persons known to the police, and it would be a very great annoyance to subject them to the possibility of arrest as strangers found roaming about under suspicious circumstances. He submitted to the Committee that it would be only a fair and proper restriction to limit the power of arrest to that already described in Clause 8, and he, therefore, proposed his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 33, after "if," insert "at any time after one hour later than sunset and earlier than one hour before sunrise."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that in regard to what the hon. and learned Member had said, he (Sir William Harcourt) was disposed to think that the number of tourists who would visit Ireland next autumn would very much depend upon whether this clause were passed or not, and whether they would consider themselves secure from the attentions of the particular class of strangers against which this clause was directed. An innocent tourist going to Killarney was not at all likely to be arrested, and the clause was meant to deal with strangers of a very different description—such, for instance, as strangers with revolvers in all their pockets—and unless there was some power to protect not only tourists, but the people of Ireland, from the visits of such strangers, he did not think it was likely that many tourists would visit the country. The distinction between the 8th and 9th clause had already been pointed out. The 8th clause applied only to the night-time, and the object of that

  1617
  was to prevent it including the inhabitants of the district who might be well-known. The 8th clause gave power to the magistrates as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to inflict six months' imprisonment. The 9th clause was not intended to apply to the inhabitants of the district at all, and was not primâ facie a punishment clause in any respect. The object of the 9th clause was to enable the police to arrest strangers who could not show that they were in a particular place for a lawful object, and it was the very essence of the section that it should apply to the day-time as well as to the night. Otherwise, it would mean nothing at all. It was not proposed to inflict a penalty under the clause; but all that was done was to require a stranger arrested under such circumstances to find security to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for six months, and, in default, he might be committed to prison until he found such security. The Government felt themselves unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that tourists had reason to desire the retention of this clause, rather than its omission from the Bill, implying thereby that they would obtain some sort of security if the clause passed, and that they would be in peril if it did not pass. This was entirely contrary to the well-known character of the Irish people, and the well-known facts of the case. A stranger visiting Ireland was, and had always been, hospitably and well received and was never molested; and, on a recent occasion, testimony to that effect had been borne by an impartial and trustworthy witness—the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone)—who, having travelled through Ireland at a time of considerable excitement, bore testimony to the fact that strangers were more secure and more safe in that country than they would have been in most parts of England. It was not the people of Ireland that strangers and visitors had to apprehend any trouble from; but if this Bill passed they would have to apprehend trouble, annoyance, and interference from the police. The character of the people of Ireland for hospitality to strangers was proverbial, and was recognized all over the world. A well-known Irish song said that—
  1618
  "In the vales of Tipperary the stranger is like a king."
  And so he was among the people. But if this Bill came into force, instead of being treated like kings, all strangers would be treated as if they were malefactors. His own belief was that if the clause passed it would almost entirely put an end to the visits of strangers. Why should such people subject themselves and their families to the insults they would have to put up with from meddlesome Irish constables, stimulated to zeal by their superiors and by the offer of rewards and other temptations. It had already been pointed out that strangers in the coming summer would have a special reason for visiting Ireland. It had been hoped that there would be a large influx of friendly strangers from En gland, Scotland, Wales, and America, and from all parts of the world, to the capital of Ireland. The Irish people were now engaged in getting up an Exhibition of Irish Manufactures. They had been often told to cultivate the virtue of self-reliance in their own country, and they were showing by that Exhibition how self-reliant they were; because, with their own resources, they were promoting the Exhibition without obtaining any help from the wealthier classes. Under these circumstances, it had been expected that, at least, upon the opening of the Exhibition there would be a large number of friendly strangers of their own kith and kin from the United States and other parts of America, and from all parts of the British Empire. But how could these people venture to visit the country in the face of this Act? Among the reasons for visiting Ireland during the coming summer was a resolution which had been passed by the Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language, declaring that it was desirable a Congress, under the auspices of the Society, should be held in Dublin in August, where delegates from all parts of Ireland and representatives of the Celtic Societies of these Islands and the Principality of Wales were invited to attend, in order to consider the present position of the Irish language as a vernacular, and how its use and study might be best promoted. But why should an Englishman, or a Scotchman, or Welshman venture to go over to Ireland on such an errand, after the Coercion Act had been passed into law, when any policeman might tell him,

  1619
  if he ventured to assert that such was the object of his mission, that the Force was not to be taken in by such a story as that? Of course, the constable would bring the stranger who visited Ireland under such circumstances before the magistrate, and, therefore, the Act would be calculated to inflict serious pecuniary harm on every class of the Irish people during the coming year. It would be one of the many Acts passed by the Imperial Parliament that tended not only to hurt, injure, and exasperate the Irish people, but also to pauperize them. Every step that could be taken, time after time, had been taken to prevent the development of Irish resources. If in Ireland it was considered desirable to encourage a manufacture or business of any kind, some excuse was immediately made for Parliament to sweep down upon it and strike a death-blow at it. It was for these reasons that he objected to this clause. But it was only one of many injurious clauses. There were others that tended to the suppression of speech and freedom of action. This would hurt the Irish people in another direction; and, personally, he regarded the entire measure as the worst insult that could be placed upon them.
  MR. SYNANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state what his definition of a stranger was. Was it a stranger to the locality, or a stranger to the country? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)? Really, at the present moment, the Members of the Committee, at all events on that side of the House, were totally at sea as to what the position of a stranger was, and how far the word would go. It was desirable to show whether a stranger within the meaning of the clause was a stranger to the country or a person who was only a stranger to the locality. If such a definition were inserted in the clause, he was of opinion that a great deal of future controversy might be avoided.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a few moments ago, placed himself in advance of this provision, because he had stated that tourists visiting the locality were not likely to be regarded in the same light as strangers with revolvers upon them.
  1620
  It was a remarkable thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was never at a loss for an extravagant illustration. What were the real facts of the case? He had already named one clause as the "Moonlight Clause." Would he call this "The Ladies' Land League Clause?" The Government had already power to give a man throe months' imprisonment if he were found with a revolver upon him, and, therefore, they did not want this clause at all. "Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what kind of stranger it was who was to come under the clause? Personalty, he (Mr. Healy) was afraid that the clause would really come under the head of the Ladies' Land League Clause. Some members of the Ladies' Land League sometimes went down to the country for the purpose of helping some evicted tenants to put up a few huts. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the Committee if this was the class of strangers who would come under the operation of the clause? The Government took power under one clause to arrest people in the night-time. By another clause they took power to expel people both by day and night: and by a further clause they took power to expel persons who were foreigners in the country. He wanted to know who was to live in the country after these provisions were put in force? If a stranger could not be out at night nor in the day-time, who was it that was to be considered safe? This was the result of the beneficent Liberal legislation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that in regard to the term "stranger," he was quite willing to take the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that it should mean a man found in any place who did not usually reside there. That would make it quite clear.
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought the Committee were wandering from the particular Amendment before them. He understood the proposal was confined to prowlers by night, and he thought no greater mistake could be made than to deprive the Executive of the power of arresting prowlers during the day-time as well as at night. He had always considered that a great mistake had been made in 1875 in drawing a distinction between day and night with respect to the right of search for arms; and, in

  1621
  this instance, he thought a great injury would be done if they restricted the right of arresting strangers at all during any portion of the 24 hours.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had answered the question put to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked whether the clause would be applied against the members of the Ladies' Laud League if they went down to the country for the purpose of erecting huts for evicted tenants? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had ingeniously avoided answering that question; but he (Mr. Sexton) wished to hear whether ladies could be arrested under the clause or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also omitted to say whether aliens might be arrested under this clause. All they knew was that strangers could be dealt with under it, as well as under the clause preceding. There was, however, a special clause for the arrest of aliens, and he wanted to know whether the word "stranger" was separate from the word "alien," or not?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the clause would apply to both strangers and aliens.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the Amendment superfluous? On what ground was it to be supposed that strangers were more likely to commit crimes in the day-time than at night? Figures had been frequently quoted in the course of these debates. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant told them that, in regard to other clauses, the experience gained from the working of the Act of 1870 had proved very valuable; but had he any similar figures to produce in regard to this clause? Had he anything to show that the power of arresting strangers had been useful, that strangers had been arrested in large numbers, and that their arrest had produced any effect upon the crime of the country? If the right hon. Gentleman was able to produce such statistics, they would be most relevant to the present discussion. The object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was to limit the power of arrest in the same way that it was proposed to limit it
  1622
  in the case of aliens—namely, so that the power of arrest could not be exercised except between dusk and dawn. The Government told them that this was not a punishment clause at all. Perhaps that might be so in the subtle mind of a lawyer, but he (Mr. Sexton) failed to see the distinction. The proposal contained in the clause was that a man should be sent to prison for a month if he failed to give security to keep the peace, and he (Mr. Sexton) thought that would be considered punishment, whatever form the matter might take in the superfine legal mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sent to gaol for a month under its provisions, would he not consider that some punishment?
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was prepared to accept the definition of stranger contained in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that a stranger should mean any stranger to the town, village, or place, or not usually residing there; therefore, under the term would come persons who only resided in the neighbourhood a month or so during the year.
  THE CHAIRMANwished to point out that the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) was referring to the next Amendment, which was not under consideration at the present moment. The present question was, whether the words "at any time after one hour later than sunset and earlier than one hour before sunrise" should be inserted.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he simply wanted to point out how indefinite the designation would be, and how necessary it was to limit the power of arrest to one hour later than sunset and one hour earlier than sunrise. He did not think it was possible to argue the necessity for inserting the words proposed to be added, except by showing the inconvenience that would result if those words were not added, and, therefore, in consequence of this proposal, he wished to know what constituted a stranger? Was he a person usually residing in a district, because, if so, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated that he was prepared to exempt him? They had heard a good deal, on

  1623
  the Sunday Closing Bills for England and Ireland, of the difficulty of defining a bonâ fide traveller. In this case, they wanted a definition of the term "stranger." Was a stranger to be defined as a bonâ fide traveller, three or five miles away from his own home, or would he have a range of, say, 10 miles? They knew that some persons were strangers to other persons when only a mile from their own homes; but, personally, when he was at home, he rarely met a stranger within 20 miles of the place where he resided. What, then, was to be the definition of a stranger? Was it to be a man found five miles from his usual place of residence, or where he was not known? Take this case. A man who had resided all his life in a particular part of Ireland might go into a country village some few miles distant, where he would find a strange policeman who had been brought from a place 100 miles away to the local police station. To that policeman the local resident would be a stranger, although, in reality, it was the policeman who was the stranger; and if he were found under what the policeman considered to be suspicious circumstances, in any of the streets or bye-ways within a mile from his own homo, the constable would have power to arrest him. In point of fact, a policeman would have power to arrest a man wherever he found him, if he only said—"You are a stranger to me," notwithstanding the fact that it was the policeman himself who was the stranger in the district. A Sub-Inspector's district in a well-populated part of Ireland generally embraced a radius of from 7 to 10 miles. Was a man who, in the day-time went into the market-town seven miles away from his own residence to be, at the discretion of the police, regarded as a stranger and liable to be arrested? All he asked for was a definition. The term must be defined in some way. Then, again, he should like to have a definition of the term "suspicious circumstances." What were suspicious circumstances? Was a man going to market early in the morning to be defined as a stranger because he was two miles away from his own residence, and was it to be a suspicious circumstance if he happened to have some agricultural produce under his arm? The proposals contained in the clause were, in his opinion, ridiculous, and
  1624
  worthy only of the ingenuity of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Law Officers for Ireland. Unless the Government agreed to strictly define what a stranger was, and what were the suspicious circumstances under which he might be arrested, he (Mr. Callan), for one, should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins).
  MR. MARUMsaid, the popular sense of the word "stranger," according to Webster's Dictionary, was "a person belonging to another town, or estate, or property." There was a second definition—namely, "one unknown." The truth was, that this clause had been taken from the Peace Preservation Act. Both the "Moonlight Clause" and this Vagrant Clause were transferred from the Peace Preservation Act; but the Peace Preservation Act laid it down expressly that the person who was arrested should be examined. There was nothing in this clause in reference to an examination. He thought it was desirable that any person arrested should have facilities for tendering himself for an examination, if he wished, in the same way as under the Peace Preservation Act. Ho did not mean to say that under this clause a person arrested would have the power; but, under the Statute of Edward III., when persons had been brought up under it, the magistrates had distinctly refused to hear them when they tendered themselves for examination; and he understood that the Law Advisers of the Crown in Ireland had laid it down that any person brought up under such circumstances was not competent to give evidence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not differ very much from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Marum) in the remark he had made, that they had not yet come to the point he was discussing. They were now discussing one single point—namely, whether or not this power was to be taken in reference to strangers in the day-time or at night only. Now, that was a very clear point. The Government could not consent to restrict the clause to acts done only at night-time. It was desirable that these arrests should be made, when necessary, either by day or night. The hon. Member was perfectly correct when he stated

  1625
  that this clause was taken from the Act of 1870, although it was not an exact transcript. The words in the Act of 1870 were—"Any stranger wandering in any district." This clause was a more limited clause than that of the Act of 1870, and he trusted that the Committee would decide it before they entered on any other point.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it would greatly facilitate the discussion if the Secretary of State for the Home Department would make some distinct statement as to the meaning of this particular word "stranger." There was no advantage in saying that this was a milder clause than that contained in the Act of 1870. The Irish Members did not believe that any disqualifying word in an Act of Parliament would be administered mildly. As long as the Government had the power, they would use it; and it was not worth a button to argue that the provision was less stringent than that of the previous Act. He had asked—but had as yet failed to get an answer—whether the clause was to be enforced against members of the Ladies' Land League, who might go down to a particular district to superintend the erection of huts for evicted tenants? That was the point he wished to get at; and they ought to have a clear answer to his question—yes or no. He would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the police had already exercised the powers under the Peace Preservation Act. by arresting ladies in the town of Kilinallock, who were members of the Ladies' Land League.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was no Ladies' Land League Clause in the present Bill; but there was no distinction drawn between the sexes. It had already been decided that there should be no distinction made between one sex and the other; but that if a person was found breaking the law, whether it was a man or a woman, he or she should be arrested. He had already intimated that he proposed to define the words "suspicious circumstances," and the clause would apply to any person, whether man or woman, who was guilty of an offence against the Act. At the same time, to say that this clause was directed against the Ladies' Land League, was not correct.
  DR. COMMINSregretted that the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1626
  ment had not at all met the difficulties which this Amendment was intended to obviate. If the clause were to be interpreted in a strict sense, then any person whatever, who was not resident in a district or town, would be a stranger; and it came to this, that the clause gave power to the police to arrest any person resident in a locality, provided it happened that he was found in a village that was not his own. He thought that was a power that was likely to be abused in regard to visitors to the country; and it was in the interests of the persons who might go to Ireland in the coming autumn to see the Exhibition, or their friends, that he (Dr. Commins) had proposed this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that in England, Scotland, and Wales there were more than 1,500,000 of persons who were either of Irish birth or parentage, and every one of them would be a stranger according to this clause, and liable to be arrested, simply because, if a policeman asked any one of them, "Who are you, and where do you come from?" and the man replied, "My name is Jones, or Smith, and I am here on a visit," the constable might at once retort—"That is a very suspicious circumstance. You are going about here under the name of Jones, or Smith. That is quite enough to justify me in arresting you." A stranger coming from Canada or the United States, or from Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, or Sheffield, was liable to be arrested, merely because he happened to be a stranger, and was not able to give satisfactory references in the district in which he found himself, or to find sureties to keep the peace. In the name of all that was wonderful, how was a stranger, under such circumstances, to comply with the provisions of the Act, and to satisfy the police constable that he had no evil intent?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member must not discuss the whole clause upon this Amendment.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he did not propose to do so. He was only endeavouring to show that unless some restriction were placed upon the power of arresting strangers, every person who visited Ireland in the autumn would be liable to arrest.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WARTONsuggested that the words "under suspicious circumstances" should be placed after the word "district," instead of occupying their present position in the clause. That was the more necessary, as the Government had intimated their willingness to adopt the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), to avoid confusion of language.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it would, perhaps, be better that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) should be withdrawn, and moved again later on, in the form that would better suit the wording of the clause. As it stood at present, it would create some confusion in the wording of the clause.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had discovered that his Amendment would give rise to some verbal difficulty in the clause, and did not intend to press it on that occasion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had intended to move that the term "stranger" in the clause should be defined to mean "a person not usually resident within a radius of ten miles of the place where he was arrested;" but, considering that too great a distance, he now proposed to alter it to five miles. The clause would then read as follows—
  "If a constable finds in a proclaimed district any stranger not usually resident within a radius of five miles therefrom under suspicious circumstances," &c.
  His proposal would limit the arbitrary power which the clause vested in policemen. The clause would still enable a policeman to arrest a stranger under suspicious circumstances; but when the person arrested gave proof that he usually resided within five miles of the district, he would be relieved from the necessity of giving bail to the magistrate. He had already endeavoured to get an explanation of the meaning of the term "stranger;" but this had not been forthcoming. The clause provided that any policeman might arrest a person under suspicious circumstances who was a stranger, but it did not say whether this meant a stranger to the district or a stranger to the policeman. Now, it was a fact that policemen in Ireland did not remain in any district for a length of time; they were removable, and were frequently sent to places where they themselves were strangers. Hon. Mem-
  1628
  bers would know that it would take months before they became acquainted with the residents in a district. Notwithstanding that, a policeman was to be allowed to arrest any person he did not know, and to bring him before a magistrate, and on the mere statement of the constable that he found the man under a hedge, or sitting in the shade, perhaps, and did not know him, the magistrate would require the individual to give bail for good behaviour, or, in default, would commit him to prison. He (Mr. Callan) wanted that a man should not be required to give bail if he resided within five miles of the district; and this was not at all an unreasonable limit to propose, for it was often the case that people in Ireland had to travel five miles from their homes to chapel. It was clear that some definition of the term stranger must be supplied, and with that object he begged to move the Amendment to which he had referred.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 36, after the word "stranger," to insert the words "not usually resident within a radius of five miles therefrom."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, although this Amendment was an improvement upon the clause, he was inclined to believe that any single-barrelled or absolute definition of the word "stranger" would be unjust. He thought the definition ought to be alternative; it should be either that a person was unknown in the place or town, or that he resided out of it. It was well known that policemen in Ireland were not, as his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had pointed out, allowed to remain in districts where they were born and bred, lest they should be hampered by former associations in the performance of their duties. It was, therefore, absurd to say that a man should be arrested by a policeman because he was a stranger, for he might be less a stranger in the place than the policeman himself. Suppose a person to be unknown in a village or town—to be merely on a visit—but having letters of introduction to persons living there, he asked, could that person be arrested under the clause? He argued that the word "stranger" should be defined to mean a person living beyond a certain radius; but he considered the limit of

  1629
  five miles, as proposed by the hon. Member for Louth, too short, because any man might take a walk of five miles from home in the course of the day, and, certainly, he could not be called a stranger at that distance from the place where he resided. In his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, the limit should be fixed at a distance beyond that to which the ordinary business of a man might take him; and, as it was quite customary with Irish farmers to travel 20 miles for the purposes of their business, he suggested that that distance should be substituted for that specified in the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not in a position to agree to any strict geographical limit of miles, because that would give rise to questions that might be quite inconsistent with the object of the clause. Still, he thought, the point indicated by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) ought to be made clear. It was difficult to conceive how a constable who arrested a person could know whether he lived 18 or 20 miles away or not. It was because it would make it clear that the clause meant a stranger to the district and not to the constable, that he had expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood).
  DR. COMMINSthought the difficulty would be obviated by inserting the word "thereto" after "stranger," having reference to the proclaimed district.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the effect of that alteration would be too large. A proclaimed district might mean a whole county.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he named the limit of five miles because it was the well-known radius around almost every police barrack. Moreover, it was the radius in Catholic districts, and also of villages in thickly-populated parts of the country. Every shopkeeper, too, would know the persons usually resident within five miles of the place where he carried on business. He repeated that his proposal in no way interfered with the discretion of the constable in arresting a person whom he found under suspicious circumstances; it was simply intended to prevent a person living within the distance specified, and, perhaps, only taking a walk, or going somewhere on business, being compelled to enter into
  1630
  a bail-bond by the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. GIVANsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would only make the clause more stringent, because the presumption, if the Amendment were adopted, would be that every person resident beyond a radius of five miles was a stranger. It did not appear to him necessary to define the word "stranger" at that stage of the Bill, although it might be properly defined when Clause 27 was reached, and then he thought the words of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated his intention of adopting, or similar words, would meet the case. Probably the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), on reconsideration, would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it would seem necessary to possess the mind of an ordinary supporter of the Government to perceive that an Amendment which excluded from the operation of the clause all persons living within a radius of five miles, rendered the clause more stringent. He (Mr. Healy) thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that a stranger to the district was intended, and not a stranger to the police; yet a constable, if he thought a man a stranger, would be bound to arrest him. It was once a matter of congratulation to a man that he was unknown to the police; but, under the clause, the position was reversed, and any man in Ireland who was unknown to the police would, henceforward, run very considerable risks when he happened to be at even a short distance from home. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he was willing to accept, would still leave this point untouched, and, therefore, it would be in no sense an improvement of the clause. The hon. and learned Member meant to throw the onus of proof upon the person arrested, whereas the practice formerly was to throw it upon the person who made the arrest. Although he (Mr. Healy) himself might be said to be known to the police in some parts of the country, he had not the pleasure of their acquaintance in the district

  1631
  which he represented, nor did he usually reside there. He was, in a sense, a stranger to the town of Wexford; and, therefore, he would he glad to know if, in the event of his going there to address his constituents, he should be liable to arrest under the clause? It appeared to him that unless some better definition were given of the term "stranger," whether or not a man was known in the district, he would be liable to arrest if he was unknown to the police.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the following incident would give the Committee some idea of the way in which constables were likely to make use of this clause. Last week, in his county, the police, without any warrant, arrested and searched three respectable men who happened to have been evicted from their holdings on the estate of Lord Cloncurry. It was very clear that this clause was unnecessary, if the police could now arrest, detain, and search persons, and then set them at liberty without bringing any charge against them. On the other hand, if such conduct was illegal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should see into it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought Irish Members were entitled to ask what was meant by each of the three terms "stranger," "suspicious circumstances," and "district." It seemed to him that the effect of this legislation would be to make Irishmen strangers in their own land. They could not go five or ten miles from home; but under this beautiful specimen of English legislation they were liable to be treated as strangers. Men born and bred in the land of their forefathers were to be circumscribed within the limits of a single district, while military officers sent over to the country were free to go about as they pleased. Such were the blessings of English legislation for Ireland! If they were to be kept within these narrow limits, what was the use of the development of railroads and other appliances for travelling from one part of the country to another? Did the Government propose to revive the custom of ancient times, when walls or boundaries were drawn around cities, and it was said to the people, "Beyond this you shall not go?" He (Mr. Sullivan) had heard that in some parts of England it was customary to welcome a
  1632
  stranger with "a half-brick;" but that was not the case in Ireland. Now, however, a stranger going there would, so to speak, have a policeman thrown at him. Ho wondered the Government were not ashamed to put such a clause in the Bill.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would have any objection to make the appellation of "stranger" applicable to the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Colonel Brackenbury, and other English officials in Ireland?
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to Order.
  MR. SEXTONsupposed that the object of the clause was to bring into the hands of the Justices of the Peace persons unknown in the district. That being so, would the Secretary of State for the Home Department strike out "stranger," and insert instead thereof "person unknown in the district?" It did not follow that a person was a stranger because he came to a place but seldom.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) rather suggested the idea of a person unknown to the constable. That was what the Government did not mean. If a constable were to arrest a person in the day-time, he would naturally ask the people about him whether the man was known to them or not. He thought the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member would rather create difficulty than remove it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was of the contrary opinion. Further, he took leave to deny that the suggested inquiry on the part of the police would be effectual for the protection of innocent persons. He contended that if a man alleged to be unknown were brought before the magistrates, and charged with being found under suspicious circumstances, he should be entitled to refer to any person in the town who might know him. The object of his proposal was that a man should be able to show that he was not unknown in the place, and not liable to imprisonment; and if the object was to arrest people who were not able to account for their business in a place, the words he suggested offered the most proper means of attaining it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas understood to say it might be very undesirable to release a person who had been arrested, merely because a single person came forward and said he knew him. There might be cases in which a man might be extremely well known, but whom, nevertheless, it would be very desirable to bring under this clause. It might be notorious that such a person had gone into a particular district for the very purpose of organizing and promoting crime in that district.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to assume that a magistrate had no right to weigh the evidence in cases of arrest under this clause. But if once the case were brought before the magistrate, he would have to weigh the evidence adduced as to the character of the person arrested, and, therefore, there would not be the slightest danger of any defeat of justice in a way that would justify the apprehensions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  MR. E. POWERsuggested that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should agree to the insertion of the words—
  "Any person unknown to such constable and residing outside the petty sessional district in which such person is found."
  DR. COMMINSsaid, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had always defined the word "stranger" to be "a stranger to the district," he (Dr. Commins) was unable to understand why he should not state this clearly in the clause. Were Irish Members to be always looking for snares in every line of the Act? They were in this position, that the police were all strangers to the district in which they were stationed. It was one of the standing rules of management in the Force, that no policeman was ever left in the district in which he was born and where he knew the people. In Dublin the rule was stronger, because, there, the police were forbidden to hold any intercourse whatever with the people. A policeman might be stationed in a district for years and yet not know the persons who lived within it; and if the constable met one of them on a road, under what he might consider to be suspicious circumstances, he might arrest him. A man, for instance, might go to shelter himself behind a hedge on a sunny day, or he might get into the
  1634
  shade of a sycamore, and the policeman might think that that man was out under suspicious circumstances. The man might be asked his name and address, and, if the policeman did not know him, the result might be that he might be led before a magistrate, perhaps some 10 miles off. It would be extremely difficult to work the clause fairly, unless some limitation were put upon the word "stranger." A stranger to a district was a man who could get no one to say a word for him in the neighbourhood—no one who could say, "I knew his father," or "I knew his grandfather, and I can testify that he lives 20 miles away, and that he has done so for the last 20 years. I can verify his case." The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that a district might be as large as a whole county. Then, what limitation was to be put upon the word "district?" The way proclamations were made was by baronies, and he believed that, as a general rule, proclamations by the Lord Lieutenant of districts in Ireland corresponded very much with the proclamation of what was called a "hundred" in England. A proclamation by baronies would be very inconvenient, through the limitation of the district, because people in Ireland were in the habit of going 15 or 20 miles, and in some cases, he believed, as far as 30 miles, to attend fairs and markets. He would take the case of the great fair of Ballinasloe, in the county which he had the honour to represent. He knew that people came from as far off as 50 miles to attend that fair. They came from Boyle and Elphin, and other places that were even more distant, and Boyle was over 40 miles away. Those people were perfectly well known in Ballinasloe. They had been in the habit of attending the fair there for, perhaps, 20 years, and they would be able to show that they were not strangers. There was scarcely a county in Ireland where similar circumstances did not arise, and, therefore, he submitted, and he pressed it upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider the suggestion, that a word or two ought to be inserted after the word "stranger," so as to define who it was who were liable to be removed as strangers. The Irish people were not like plenty of people in this country.

  1635
  They lived for generations—aye, for dozens of generations—in the same neighbourhood; their names were known 40 miles away; and no difficulty would ever arise with regard to the respectable men from the size of the district to which they might belong. He (Dr. Commins) and his Friends only wanted to protect the respectable men. They did not want to protect the class of people whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to catch. Let that class be caught, by all means, and there was plenty of power to do it under the Bill. If men were found with arms upon their persons, or with diguises about them, or if men were found who had been away to America, and who had no business to be about in Ireland, there was power to arrest them and lock them up under the Vagrant Act. If a man who thought of propagating mischief, or who was a member of a secret society, was caught prowling about after nightfall, he could be arrested under the 8th section of the Vagrant Act. It was the mischievous classes that the Irish Members, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, wished to see put under restraint. But there was ample power already to catch and restrain them, and put them out of the way of doing further mischief. All that the Irish Members desired to do was to have the respectable classes protected—the people born and bred in a district, who could account for themselves.
  MR. MARUMpointed out, that if the clause remained as it was, the word "stranger" would bear the same interpretation as in the clauses of the Peace Preservation Act. Dr. Johnson defined the word "stranger" thus:—"A foreigner; one of another country; one unknown; a guest; one not a domes tick; one unacquainted; one not admitted to any communication or fellowship." Webster defined it as "one of another town, city, or province," and also as "unknown;" and the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would come to the same thing. He (Mr. Marum) did not think there could be much objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo(Mr. Sexton), which gave an equivalent for the word "stranger."
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment under
  1636
  discussion was that of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), proposing to insert, after "stranger," the words "not usually resident within a radius of five miles therefrom."
  MR. MARUM: Then, like many other hon. Gentlemen, I was not directing my observations to the correct point.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it would not save a great deal of time simply to provide that a stranger should be conducted across the frontier?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman must speak to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the Amendment before the Committee was to the effect that a man must live within five miles of the place where he was found. He wished to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department a way whereby the discussion on the clause might be shortened very much. No one could say that sending a man to gaol for 30 days was an adequate punishment for murder; and he would suggest, as a course which would meet the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan), and shorten the discussion very much, that where a man was found in a district where he ought not to bo, he should simply be conducted outside that district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department surely could not claim to sentence such a man to 30 or 40 days' imprisonment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing a matter which is quite different from the Amendment before the Committee.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 72: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, over and over again, declared that by "stranger" he meant "stranger to the district." In order to make that clear, he (Dr. Commins) proposed to insert in line 36, after the word "stranger," the word "thereto."
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "stranger," to insert the word "thereto."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thereto' be there inserted,"
  MR. SEXTONthought the Committee were entitled to have some statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had had time to consider whether he would not now, or at some other stage of the Bill, insert the words "person unknown." It was said, for instance, that a person might come forward and testify as to the man arrested, but the discretion of the magistrate remained untouched.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have made four or five speeches, all on this very point; and I would appeal to hon. Members to say whether this is a fair way of dealing with the Bill. Here is this word "stranger;" hon. Members opposite have had all this time to consider it, and not one single Amendment has been put down on the Paper in regard to it. There was an Amendment put down by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and that I expressed myself willing to accept. But now, although no other Amendments have been put down upon the Paper—none by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—we are having Amendment after Amendment proposed, each like the other. What would be the use of my arguing against any one of them? I know that as soon as I had argued against one, and it had been disposed of, another would be proposed, and another, and another. Hon. Members have had weeks to consider this matter; but they have not thought it necessary or desirable to place a single Amendment on the Paper, and the only Amendment that has been put down I have said I am willing to accept. I am, therefore, not prepared to argue the question any more, for I have already stated the reason why I cannot accept such proposals as have been made. I may mention, by the way, that I was astonished to hear one hon. and learned Member say that baronies were proclaimed. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland whether that is the case, and he tells me that a district so small as a barony is never proclaimed.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the barony of Farney had been proclaimed, and so had other baronies. Comments had frequently been made on the recklessness of statement indulged in by the Irish Members; but this was a striking
  1638
  example of recklessness of statement on the other side. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that baronies had never been proclaimed. He (Mr. Healy) would challenge the Government to say whether they had not proclaimed baronies in County Monaghan, in Kilkenny, and in Tipperary. And why was the barony of Farney proclaimed in County Monaghan? Why was it picked out from ail the rest of the county? Because it was the only Catholic portion of the county. It was quite true that the rule was to proclaim an entire county; but wherever it suited the Government, if they wanted to proclaim a square rod of ground, no question of decency would ever prevent them from doing so. The Government in Ireland were capable of doing anything; but to say that they never proclaimed baronies was most extraordinary. As to the word "thereto," he (Mr. Healy) had been in the House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department declared himself unable to accept it, because, he said, it would refer to the entire district. But perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unaware of what the size of a proclaimed district might be. It might fairly be argued that the insertion of the word "thereto" was a proper and reasonable Amendment. Hitherto a man had not been a "stranger" in any part of Ireland. Now he was to be made one, even if he came from the same part of the same district. As to the complaint that no well-considered Amendments had been proposed to the clause by the Irish Members, that was rather refreshing, coming from the Treasury Bench. It was the business of the Government so to draw their Bill that it might not be open to these objections which clustered round the word "stranger," and he thought they ought to look at the matter in a frank and kindly spirit, and not in a spirit of restrictive amendment such as was apparent in the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). As to the question of placing Amendments on the Paper, he would only point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had himself declared that he was disposed to propose an Amendment after the words "suspicious circumstances,"

  1639
  and yet that Amendment had not been placed upon the Paper, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the clause in his hands, not for weeks, like the Irish Members, but for months. Now, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to hand in an Amendment which was not on the Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. I said, the other night, that on Report I would try and fortify the words "suspicious circumstances" in the manner I then stated.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it would be done in Committee. He (Mr. Healy) thought that as the Government had no clear definition in their own minds of the word "stranger," they ought to have refrained from drawing up this clause until they had decided upon what a stranger actually was. As, however, they had brought up the clause before they had made up their minds, it was not too much to ask that the word "thereto" should be inserted.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood); but, surely, he did not think that that would be accepted as a concession by the Irish Members.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member must not discuss an Amendment that was not before the Committee. The word "thereto" was now under discussion.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had himself referred to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and he (Dr. Commins) had only wished to point out, what he would not do now, that that Amendment would only make the provision still worse in the direction which the Irish Members were fighting against. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been pressed, over and over again, to say what he meant by the word "stranger." Was it a stranger to the policeman, or what? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that
  1640
  what was meant by the clause was to give power, not over strangers to the policeman, but over strangers to the district. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Locality.] He would accept the correction; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words were "strangers to the district," and they were repeated three or four times over. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, knew what he himself meant, and the Government knew what they meant, and it came with a very bad grace from them to find fault with the Irish Members for offering them their own interpretation. Under these circumstances, he must press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had a logical mind, and, therefore, knew that the greater included the less. If a man were a stranger to the town or district, he would also be a stranger to the village. The Government were convicted of an absurdity.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 73: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 152.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 38, after the word "peace," to insert the words "but the constable is not to retain in custody any person who gives reasonable proof of his identity, who names his permanent and temporary address, and who agrees to come when summoned before a justice of the peace, unless the constable makes an affidavit that he feared such person would endeavour to escape."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30' Noes 77: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
  MR. SEXTONsaid, on behalf of the hon. Member for the City of Cork) Mr. Parnell), he wished to move, in substitution of the words in the 38th line—
  "Unless such stranger satisfies the justice that he is in such place for a lawful object,"
  the following words:—
  "Unless such justice, after enquiry into the circumstances of the case, is satisfied that he is not there for an unlawful purpose."
  The object of the Amendment was to remove the onus of proof from the person accused. He (Mr. Sexton) found,

  1641
  on reference to the Act of 1870, that the Justices, for similar purposes, were obliged to admit the evidence of the accused person, and if they believed he was not present for an unlawful purpose, the prisoner was to be discharged. And, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had agreed to the insertion of similar words in the last clause, which had the effect of removing the onus of proof from persons brought before the Court for being found out at night. So far as the propriety of admitting this Amendment was concerned, there was no difference whatever between the last clause and the present, because the former dealt with persons found out at night, and the latter dealt with strangers found under suspicious circumstances, whether by night or day. For these reasons, he thought Irish Members were entitled to claim that a person arrested under this clause should, as in the cases referred to, be relieved from the onus of satisfying the Justice that he had a lawful object in view. The Committee would perceive that although a person residing in the neighbourhood would have little difficulty in proving his innocence, it would be very different in the case of a stranger. He said it was extremely cruel and unjust that a man who was a stranger in a place or district should be suddenly arrested on suspicion, brought before the magistrates, and there compelled to prove his innocence, or find bail, and, in default, go to prison. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the substitution of this Amendment in place of the words of the clause, because if there were any ground for the arrest of the stranger, the police could offer such proof of suspicious circumstances as would satisfy the magistrates, and the least they ought to do would be to 'convey to the minds of the magistrates their sense of the suspicious circumstances which justified the arrest.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, leave out all the words from "and" in line 38, to "object" in line 39, and insert "unless such justice, after enquiry into the circumstances of the case, is satisfied that he is not there for an unlawful object."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'unless such stranger' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, ho saw no objection in principle to the words moved by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), as far as he was able to understand them. But it was unwise, in cases of the kind, to insert words in haste. If the hon. Member would accept his assurance that he admitted the Amendment in principle, he was prepared to consider its bearing on the wording of the clause, and insert words later on which would carry out that principle. That being so, he suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was not to limit in any way the powers of the clause, or their application. It was intended to constitute some guarantee to the persons who would be arrested under the clause that they should not be proceeded against maliciously for the commission of very slight acts; that, at least, when a police-constable undertook to arrest a man, he would be prepared to give something like satisfactory reasons for making the arrest. Unless the Amendment were accepted, the clause would be liable to large abuse, because it would lead to malicious prosecutions on the part of policemen on bad terms with persons in the neighbourhood. He believed the Amendment would commend itself to the Government, because it did not in any way restrict their power of using the Bill, so far as they might be supposed to use it, for just purposes. The limitation proposed would only affect that application of the Bill that he was sure Her Majesty's Government would not like to see made by the minor officials, who would be prevented in the country districts making the Bill a means of personal tyranny and persecution. That being so, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would agree to the Amendment which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 1, after the word "may," leave out "require him," and insert "on the information on oath and in writing of the con. stable testifying to the facts which, in his

  1643
  opinion, renders the presence of such stranger in the district suspicious, require such stranger."—(Mr. O' Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'require him' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not necessary when a constable brought up a man on a charge that he should lay any information on oath or in writing before the magistrate. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly), therefore, asked what was not required by the existing law. He, however, understood from the remarks of the hon. Member that his object was that there should be some record of the information on which the constable acted. The hon. Member would find this provided for in the next sub-section of the clause, which said—
  "The said justice may for good cause discharge a person so committed, and in any case shall forthwith transmit a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant, stating the grounds of the committal, the security required, and any explanation given by the prisoner by way of defence. The Lord Lieutenant may order the prisoner to be discharged if it seems just to him so to do."
  The account, therefore, of the action taken under this clause would be full and complete as regarded the grounds on which it rested, and, that being so, he thought the object of the hon. Member would be secured.
  MR. GIVANconsidered the Amendment ought to be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The clause empowered a magistrate to inflict a heavy penalty on a stranger found in a district under suspicious circumstances. Now, he thought the provision contained in the sub-section referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not a sufficient protection for the purpose in view, because the statement of the grounds of the committal which was required to be forwarded by the Justice to the Lord Lieutenant would be a statement to which no one would be bound on oath. It would be merely taken down by the Clerk of Sessions from the statement made by the constable, and the constable might, at a future time, when confronted with fresh evidence, controvert some portion of it. He thought that no more reasonable Amendment had been put forward in the case of the Bill. It was most desirable that the magistrate should have
  1644
  before him the written information of the constable on oath, which could be afterwards referred to for the purpose of ascertaining clearly, definitely, and in-controvertibly the grounds upon which the decision rested.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the Bill was exceptional, and, therefore, exceptional precautions were necessary. The reason why they wanted the record was not so much to know why the constable made the charge, as to furnish means of punishing a policeman who, for reasons of personal malice or vengeance, had abused the Act. His Amendment was a precaution against the abuse of the Act, and only amounted to asking for a reasonable guarantee against the unjust application of the extraordinary powers about to be conferred on the local authorities in Ireland. He believed, on reconsideration, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would come to the conclusion that such guarantee was necessary.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORdid not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had quite grasped the argument of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). The reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory so far as the Justice of the Peace was concerned; but nothing at all had been said about the constable, the person who took the initiative in the matter, and who ought certainly to be required to give upon oath the reasons for the arrest.
  MR. BIGGARthought the Government were unreasonable in not agreeing to the Amendment. There was always a tendency, in cases of arrest of this kind, to carry it out in a very loose fashion, and, therefore, it was important to fix the policeman to a statement of his reasons for the arrest upon oath and in writing. If the clause were fairly administered, he thought no injustice would be incurred under it by perfectly innocent persons; but the statement of a policeman not sworn to and put into writing certainly ought not to be sufficient to send a man to gaol.
  MR. LABOUCHEREhoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department saw there was a general consenus of opinion in favour of the Amendment, and that he would agree to adopt the

  1645
  words of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). Under a natural state of things, a person who gave false evidence might be prosecuted; but here there would be no one before the Justices to take down the words, and he would consequently escape. The written statement on oath was intended to be of use if the constable gave false evidence.
  MR. M'LARENthought concessions, of the kind asked for by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) would probably have the effect of facilitating the progress of the Bill. The point of the Amendment was so obvious and important that he was quite at a loss to understand the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Some of the Amendments proposed by hon. Members opposite were of so harmless a kind, that it was a matter of surprise to him that they were not more readily accepted by the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not agree that this was a harmless Amendment, because, if it were carried, it would make the clause unworkable. To authorize a police-constable to arrest a man on suspicion was, no doubt, a strong power to give; but, if it was to be given at all, it was ridiculous to encumber it with conditions that would make it inoperative.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, nothing more was asked than that the constable should state the grounds of the arrest on oath; and he certainly could not see that the adoption of that Amendment would render the clause ridiculous. On the contrary, he thought it was very desirable that a constable who arrested a man on suspicion should be made to state the grounds of the arrest on oath.
  MR. GILLthought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in error in saying the adoption of the Amendment would render the clause unworkable. For his own part, he (Mr. Gill) regarded the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) as most reasonable. The powers given to the police under the Bill were very great—greater, in his opinion, than should be conferred on them—and they were besides of the character most likely to be abused. If those powers were to be given, he contended that they should be surrounded by such reasonable safe-
  1646
  guards for the protection of innocent people as his hon. Friend had suggested. As an instance of the way in which such powers were abused by the police, he would only refer to the fact that constables had been proved to have brought charges, under the Contagious Diseases Acts, against perfectly innocent young women who were not "strangers," but inhabitants of the towns in which the charges were preferred against them. In the face of these facts, he asked, was not this a terrible power which was now proposed to be given to police-constables in Ireland—a power to be used against strangers who had no means of defending themselves? If the police in England used their powers in the way he had described, he supposed that no Member of the House would argue that the police in Ireland could not abuse their powers in a similar manner.
  MR. WILLISpointed out that 4,000,000 people lived in London at the present time under Acts of Parliament which empowered a police-constable to arrest on suspicion in cases of felony, misdemeanour, and breach of the peace. That law, so far as his experience went, had never been abused. There was, then, no reason to suppose that the same power would be abused in Ireland; and, therefore, he said there was no reason for making an alteration of the kind suggested in a measure passed to meet a great emergency.
  MR. M'COANsaid, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that this was an extreme power to give to the police, there was nothing unreasonable in a check of the kind proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Kelly) being placed on the arbitrary action of the Force. He could not see how the salutary operation of the clause for the preservation of order, or the detection of crime when committed, could be affected by the arresting constable being required to commit himself on oath to a statement of the grounds on which his suspicion rested. Unless some grounds of suspicion were submitted to the magistrate, he would be without any materials for arriving at a decision. He was quite unable to see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should say that if the Amendment were adopted, the clause might as well be given up. For his own part, he (Mr. M'Coan) thought the Government would be consulting their

  1647
  own interest more by accepting some of the moderate and mild Amendments of Irish. Members, than by exasperating them by refusals of every reasonable concession; and he would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to reconsider the view he had taken of the Amendment before the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. W.M. JOHNSON)thought the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. M'Coan) could not have been in the House when the last Amendment was accepted by the Government, or he would not have made the statement with which he concluded his speech. It seemed to him they had been engaged for a considerable time upon a matter which was not worthy of discussion. As he understood the clause, a man roaming about under suspicious circumstances was to be brought before the magistrate, who would inquire into the case. The magistrate was not to decide upon the statement of the constable alone, but to inquire into the case by the aid of all the evidence he could get. But the Amendment asked that there should be a partial record—and not a complete or perfect record—taken, which should be brought forward again after the magistrates had inquired into all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. GIVANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) had stated that the inhabitants of London lived under a law by which a constable might arrest a man on the mere suspicion of crime. That was not the point. The point was that a man might be arrested on the unsworn evidence of a young, green, and irresponsible constable, taken before a magistrate as inexperienced as the policeman, and imprisoned for six months, or bound over to keep the peace, without leaving any record behind sworn. He did not know any law which gave such a power to a policeman or magistrate, and he therefore hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment. If the policeman could say that the man he arrested had been loafing about with, apparently, nothing to do, that fact should be put in the information—there should be a record of it. But do not leave the public in general at the mercy of, it might be, an inexperienced, but, certainly, an irresponsible policeman.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was unable to understand the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in his reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow(Mr. M'Coan). The hon. Member for Wicklow had said the whole thing was ridiculous; but if he had been present when the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was under discussion, he would not have said such a thing. [Mr. M'COAN: I did not say anything of the kind.] He was under a mistake, then. It appeared to him to be the most astonishing thing in the world that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should refuse to accept such an Amendment as this. Frankly, he would say he should have thought the Amendment necessary, and should have thought it impossible, for a moment, to believe that the Government intended that strangers arrested in any part of Ireland should be taken before the magistrates and compelled to enter into recognizances, or sent to gaol in default, without the slightest sworn testimony having been given. He felt convinced that if the Amendment had not been brought forward, and the clause had passed without Amendment, or without discussion on Amendment, no magistrate in Ireland would have thought of compelling a man to enter into recognizances, or of sending him to gaol in default, without sworn evidence. He very much feared, now that the question had been raised, that if the clause were to pass without Amendment, the magistrates would do under the Bill what they would never have thought of doing. He was surprised to see that some hon. Gentlemen saw a similarity between the power possessed by the policeman in England of arresting a man on suspicion, and that which, according to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was to be claimed by the policeman in Ireland of not only arresting a man on suspicion, but of getting him to enter into his recognizances or being sent to prison. Taking the clause as it stood, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, was it possible that it was the intention of the Government to do this in the case of a stranger without requiring a particle of sworn testimony to be given against him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it could not for a moment be contemplated that a case would be decided without sworn evidence. What he had objected to was that it should be laid down in the Bill that only part of the evidence should be sworn. So far as he was aware, there was no other way in which a magistrate could inquire into a case except by hearing sworn evidence.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, they did not ask that part of the evidence only should be sworn and recorded; but they wished to make certain that a particular portion of it should be so treated. If the Committee looked at the clause, they would see that the magistrate must make a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant—
  "Stating the grounds of the committal, the security required, and any explanation given by the prisoner by way of defence;"
  and, of course, before such a report as that was made, sworn evidence must be given. He did not share the apprehensions of some of his hon. Friends, that the magistrates would send a man to gaol without sworn testimony. A policeman brought a man up under suspicious circumstances—what was the function of the magistrate? It was to take evidence on oath, so that he might form a pretty correct opinion as to whether the man had been in the place or neighbourhood from which he was taken for an unlawful purpose. He took it for granted that in a Court claiming to be a Court of Justice, or a Court of Law, the magistrates would not hear a charge against a man without evidence. What he desired was that the information laid by the police should be placed on record, so that afterwards it might be open to the Representatives of the people to demand the evidence upon which a man had been committed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they need not discuss this matter at any length. The Committee would understand that it was proposed in the Amendment, not that evidence should be taken and a record made of it, but that one portion of the evidence only should be recorded. If the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) would look at his own Amendment he would see that it ran thus—
  "On the information on oath and in writing of the constable testifying to the facts which, in his opinion, render the presence of such stranger in the district," &c.
  1650
  Would the Committee be good enough to put on one side the question of arrest by the constable? When the constable had arrested a person on suspicion, that person would be brought before the magistrates; and they had accepted an Amendment by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which said that—
  "If such justice, after inquiry into the circumstances of the case, is satisfied he is not there for a lawful purpose."
  Every lawyer in the House must agree with him (the Attorney General) that this meant inquiry on oath. He would suggest to hon. Members opposite that their object was to have the evidence as a whole, and that it should be taken down in a manner similar, perhaps, to that in which depositions were now taken. In the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he (the Attorney General) would not say more than that the hon. Member should not move an Amendment dealing with an isolated portion of the evidence, but that it would be much better for him to raise the whole question of the entire evidence being recorded. The hon. Member might move, in page 5, line 10, after "committal," to insert "and the evidence that has been taken," and then they would not only get the statement of the police, but the evidence of all the witnesses.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that what the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had just stated as to the character of the inquiry—to use the word embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—would be unanswerable and conclusive if the inquiry were to take place before London magistrates. But, as a matter of fact, the Committee must bear in mind that, in many of these cases, the magistrate would be a Justice of the Peace in some remote part of Ireland, and that such an individual would probably not view the case with the judicial mind of a London stipendiary. He would not, in fact, feel himself under an obligation to take sworn evidence at all. This was what would happen in the great majority of cases. The constable would meet a stranger, and, sniffing suspicion in the air, he would arrest him under what he—the constable—might choose to consider sus-

  1651
  picious circumstances. It might be that all the ground of suspicion attaching to this stranger would be that he had a slouch hat, square-toed boots, and a coat of foreign cut. Well, the policeman arrested this man, and there was no other witness in the case. He took him before a magistrate, and said to his worship—"I saw this person walking under a hedge, and I thought his movements suspicious." That was all the suspicion there might be, and it could hardly be the intention of the Government to allow, say, a lay magistrate, who knew nothing of law, and who would be much more likely to attach weight to the word of a policeman than to that of a stranger, to send any man to prison on such a presumption of guilt. No committal should take place except on sworn evidence duly recorded, and such record should be sent to the Lord Lieutenant. Yet if the clause were allowed to become law as it stood, most magistrates would read the section as an instruction to commit without sworn evidence at all. The Government surely could not mean that this was to be done, because great injustice might be the result.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he entirely agreed with a great deal that the hon. Member (Mr. M'Coan) had said; but the hon. Member wished only to have a record of the policeman's evidence, and the suggestion the Government made was that it would be better to move an Amendment to provide that there should be a record of all the evidence. Why the Irish Members should object to have the other evidence besides that of the policeman, he (Sir Henry James) could not conceive. If the Amendment he suggested were proposed in its proper place, no doubt his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would discuss it and accept it.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, in view of the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would postpone his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had a small Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper, and he hoped the Government would not have any objection to it. He wished to suggest that after the word "sureties," in line 2,
  1652
  page 5, they should insert the words, "of not more than fifty pounds."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, after the word "sureties," insert the words "of not more than fifty pounds."—(Mr. T. P O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYtook it that the object of the Amendment was to prevent a prohibitive recognizance being insisted upon by the magistrate. In Ireland, as most of them knew, there were various types of magistrates. Some of them would be very fair; whilst others, who were entirely in the interest of the landlord class, were inclined to be very severe, especially upon people of the lower grades of society. If they made the amount of the recognizances definite and certain, it would not matter what kind of a man a prisoner was brought before. If they did not fix the recognizances, the prisoner should be allowed some choice; he should be permitted to say what magistrates he should be taken before. The Government had drawn this clause very loosely; and, under it, if the magistrate felt so disposed, he might make the recognizance, say, £1,000,000, which would be absurd on the face of it. He was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) could not have been consulted when this clause was drafted, or he would not have given his assent to it.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he had consulted with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) upon the question, and he saw no objection to accepting the Amendment, on the understanding that each of the sureties and the principal himself would be liable for the amount of the recognizances.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthought the proposal made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a very fair one, and he would incorporate it in his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment would be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then I suppose I had better withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. T. A. DICKSON: Do I understand that the sureties are £50 each?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he begged leave to move, in page 5, after the word "behaviour," to insert the words "while within such district." He thought there ought to be limits to the responsibility of the sureties. It was one of the primary objects of the Government to get rid of what were called "suspicious characters;" in fact, if they left the country, that was all the Government desired. For that reason it was that he moved the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, after the word "behaviour," insert the words "while within such district."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That such words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment, because it would only be necessary, in that case, to evade the operation of the clause, for a man to move 50 yards away from the place.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether he would distinguish between being at peace, and being of good behaviour? Under the Statute of Edward III. they bound a man over to be of good behaviour; and he had always believed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had availed himself of the provisions of this Act, in dealing with the Salvation Army, and had endeavoured to bind over the members of that organization to be of good behaviour, instead of endeavouring to get them bound over to keep the peace, he would have been successful in his prosecution. It would enlighten the Committee very much if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would explain to them, from the Front Ministerial Bench, the difference between keeping the peace and being of good behaviour—The hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer. Perhaps he could not give them an explanation?
  MR. DILLONsaid, he should like to know, for his own personal information, what being of good behaviour was? It seemed to him to be a very wide ex-
  1654
  pression. Surely it was very hard to ask a man to give substantial bail to be of good behaviour, if they did not give him the faintest idea of what they meant by good behaviour.
  MR. BIGGARdid not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, and, therefore, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, after the word "peace," to leave out the words "and to be of good behaviour." He did it with the object of eliciting from the Government, if possible, what a man was to be bound over to do under these words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) whether a magistrate had power to bind a man over to be of good behaviour?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No discussion can take place until we have a question before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had moved an Amendment. He had moved to leave out the words "to be of good behaviour," and he had done so on the ground that he required information as to what the words meant. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, it must be remembered, had distinctly stated that there should be no surplusage in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 2, after the word "peace," leave out "to be of good behaviour."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) said he did not know the meaning of the phrase "to be of good behaviour," and he (the Attorney General) would not contradict the hon. Gentleman on that point. [A laugh.] He did not mean that personally; but he could not believe that the hon. Member did not understand the words. It was an old legal term, which meant something more and wider than keeping the peace. Binding a man over to keep the peace meant binding him

  1655
  over to refrain from acts of violence; I but binding a man over to be of good behaviour amounted to binding him over not to commit acts, which might not be acts of violence, but yet which would be likely to set class against class, or to incite to acts which would be a breach of the peace, and which would, therefore, be seditious. The words were continually used.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to know why the words were not included in the magistrates' commission? Why, should they have one law in Ireland and another in England? Why did he not bind over the "Salvationists" to be of good behaviour? The fact of the matter was, that they dared not do so. Although, under the Statute of Edward III., the Government could bind over every man-jack of the "Salvationists" to be of good behaviour, they had not the courage to invoke that Statute. They dared not do so; there would be such an outcry against it in England. It was only good enough for the mere Irish.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, although his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had exposed himself to a somewhat sarcastic statement from the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James), it was, nevertheless, the fact that the same doubt, which was evidently in the mind of his hon. Friend, was experienced by many people in Ireland. Probably, the hon. and learned Attorney General, therefore, would make the same sarcastic observation with regard to many other people. The ladies who went from Dublin to superintend the building of huts for evicted tenants were held by Mr. Clifford Lloyd to be guilty of bad behaviour, and had been called upon to find sureties to be of good behaviour. Two carpenters from Limerick, who were employed upon the construction of these huts, and who were earning 4s. a-day at their trade, were also declared by Mr. Clifford Lloyd to be of bad behaviour; and so, in the case of various acts, in themselves most innocent, done in differents parts of the country, the magistrates had held that the people committing them had been of bad behaviour, simply because it was believed that their operations interfered with the interests of the land-owning class of Ireland. Unless some definition of these words were given, to limit the
  The Atterney General
  1656
  power to be conferred under the clause, the Amendment must certainly be pressed further.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he hoped the Government would make some concession on this point, because, really, the more they examined into the clause, the more clearly would they see its insidiousness. What did it amount to? They had a whole system of offences marked out against a man in this Act. They bound him down so that he could hardly do anything; but, for fear that he might just be able to do one or two little things, they brought forward this clause, under the pretext that it was to be a protection against a man who came into a district for the purpose of committing murder or manslaughter, treason or treason-felony, attempts to kill, aggravated crimes of violence against the person, arson, whether by Common Law or by Statute, or attacks on dwelling-houses. If the clause were to be used only against persons who came into a district for the purpose of committing these offences, he (Mr. Dillon) and his Friends should not oppose it; but it might be used for an entirely different purpose, and the statements they had heard from the Government as who was to be considered a stranger, showed them how this clause was to be used. A man might be a stranger in a district, although his character and business might be very well known. If he (Mr. Dillon) went into the county he represented, he was a stranger—he was a stranger in every district of that county, because he had never lived there. Well, if he went into that county, he might be taken and bound over to be of good behaviour. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had said that anything that might be said or done calculated to set class against class, or anything that might be said to be an incitement to the committal of a breach of the peace, would be included in these words—"to be of good behaviour," as being seditious. Well, for the first time in his life, he (Mr. Dillon) now heard a Crown Lawyer laying down that definition, and saying that anything tending to set class against class in Ireland was sedition. It amounted to this—that anybody who was agitating in Ireland, if that agitation were calculated in any way to set one class against another, might be regarded by a magistrate, or a

  1657
  Crown lawyer, or a Judge, as acting in a seditious manner. Under such a rule as that, it would be impossible for anybody in Ireland to complain of the action of the landlords, or to complain of evictions—it would be impossible even for them to complain of the action of the Government, because every complaint of that kind would be seditious. They knew that, under ordinary circumstances, when a case came to be tried before a jury, the common sense of the jurymen interpreted accurately the amount of the offence committed by a defendant. But, under this Bill, the trial would not be by a jury, but it would partake of the character of a "Star Chamber" inquiry. A man who habitually lived in Ireland, and who made himself obnoxious to the authorities, if he went out of his district, although his aim and object might be perfectly legitimate, and although he might in no way be connected with outrages, might be put under the rule of bail, which would pursue him all over Ireland. If such a man did anything, no matter where, that was calculated to produce discontent in the minds of any person, he would forfeit his own bail and that of his sureties.
  MR. MARUMsaid that, if a man swore the peace against another, that other was bound over to keep the peace. Under the Statute of Edward III. the law of England and the law of Ireland were exactly the same, although he did not maintain that the administration of it was similar.
  MR. GIVANsaid, that, under the existing law, there was a power to bind over a person to keep the peace, and the terms on which persons were so bound over were given in the 34th section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 93. The magistrates had jurisdiction to bind over to keep the peace in respect of assaults and malicious injuries, and in the Schedule there was a form under which persons were bound, not only to keep the peace, but also to be of good be-havour. He did not think that the point was of much moment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that on this subject of binding a person over to be of good behaviour, he would read an extract from Paterson's Liberty of the Subject. In the volume entitled Security of the Person, he said—and the Secretary of State for the Home Department might take a hint, perhaps, from this
  1658
  statement of opinion in dealing with the point—
  "How far surety for good behaviour may be ordered:"
  "The proceeding of binding over a party to keep the peace towards some individual is an intelligible and necessary remedy and precaution, because it points to a definite and precise mischief which it is designed to avert. It is founded on the oath of an individual, that already some overt act or disposition towards personal violence had been manifested, and that if the party is not restrained or cautioned in an emphatic manner, he may do irreparable mischief. But when, in somewhat similar circumstances, it is thought to extend such jurisdiction into a wider sphere, and to demand 'sureties for good behaviour' this involves so vague and shadowy an imputation on the party aimed at, that the Courts might well hesitate to act upon it."
  That was a very important opinion. The writer went on to say—
  "Good behaviour, in view of the law, can only mean conduct flowing from a general disposition to observe its full directions in their full latitude and detail; and, indeed, such a frame of mind ought to be frankly accepted and presumed in all subjects whatever. If any person manifests a proclivity towards any specific crime, there are, or ought to be, appropriate modes of punishing not only the crime, but any attempt to commit it. All kinds of threats of violence towards the person are fully disposed of, as already described, on the application to swear the peace."
  That was highly important to consider in regard to this Bill.
  "To go beyond that, to exact sureties for being a good citizen, without reference to any overt step towards a breach of the law, is to travel beyond the proper province of the law into the region of morals, and to seek a kind of specific performance of good conduct, which comes neither within the category of crime nor any attempt or threat to commit it. It would be time enough to interfere when something had been done sufficiently definite to disturb the general security which the law throws round every subject of the realm."
  The writer went on to say a great deal more; but he (Mr. Healy) would not trouble the Committee with it. The statement he had read was a most important one—the authority was that of a very well-known lawyer. Surely, after hearing the extract, the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would give way on the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman only told them that the phrase, "to be of good behaviour," was a very old and well recognized one. That was true. But what were the facts? There was a phrase in the Statute of Edward III.; but there

  1659
  was not a single instance in English practice; there was not a single record of its having been put into practice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there certainly wore records that could be given.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he only spoke of newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Courts in Ireland. He had not been present at the time; but he was informed that during the State Trials in Dublin it was stated that there was no record of its having been put into practice, and that the statement was never contradicted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was anxious to avoid entering into a legal argument with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), because he was very much much afraid that he (Mr. Healy) would get the better of him if he did. He could not, however, help thinking that the hon. Member was wrong in this matter. In every Commission of the Peace, Tinder which a Justice of the Peace obtained his powers, it was stated that the Justice should have power to cause a person to find sufficient security for the peace, or to be of good behaviour. Then, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, Courts of Summary Jurisdiction were expressly given the power to adjudge persons to enter into recognizances as security to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour towards the person or persons complaining. [Mr. HEALY: Towards the "person or persons?"] Yes, that was the common form. Then there was the Act of 1851, and even the hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, wished to put that into operation. [Mr. HEALY: In regard to an individual.] He did not wish to go into the discussion again. There were a great many things pointed at in the words "good behaviour," and the power of binding over to be of good behaviour was required in respect of acts not amounting to a breach of the peace, but which led to it. That power was intended rather to prevent the commission of crime than to punish it. The phrase had been in common use in England for a long time, as the hon, and learned Member (Dr. Commins) sitting near the hon. Member for Wexford would be able to tell that hon. Gentleman. This was by no means the application to Ireland of
  1660
  a strange law. The law was the same as that which was in existence in England.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he wished to say a word in addition to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James). He had here the form universally in use in England, and it was as follows:—"To keep the peace and to be of good behaviour to all Her Majesty's subjects." That was the form in a book of great authority, and the form universally used throughout England.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment, if the hon. and learned Attorney General would consent to put in the words he had mentioned—"to be of good behaviour towards some person."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if they inserted words in the plural, they would include all persons. The common form was to keep the peace not only towards certain persons, but towards all Her Majesty's subjects.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had no objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman putting it as much in the plural as he liked. But the hon. and learned Gentleman could not get off in that way on this point. What they wanted to get at was this—Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to put in the Bill words to the effect that the person bound over should be of good behaviour towards some "person or persons?" Unless these words were inserted, they might find Irish magistrates contending that it was bad behaviour to erect a hut, or to collect subscriptions for persons put in goal for erecting huts.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was anxious to meet the wishes of the hon. Member. Would words of this kind suit him?—?
  "Shall be of good behaviour towards Her Majesty and all her liege subjects, and especially towards the complainant."
  MR. HEALY: Yes; put that in.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I will, on Report.
  MR. HEALY: Very well; then I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he begged to move a new sub-section after Sub-section (1), as follows:—
  "(2). The justice shall, on the application of any such person brought before him as aforesaid, adjourn the further hearing of the case to a petty sessions to he held for the petty sessions district within which such arrest took place, not less than four days after the date of such application, and to consist of at least two justices, on such person giving reasonable bail for his appearance at such petty sessions. Such court of petty sessions shall deal with the case in manner provided by 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and the Acts amending same, in case of summary proceedings, and shall have the same power to deal with such person as in this section hereinbefore conferred on a justice of the peace."
  It would be apparent to the Committee that the object of this Amendment was to give an accused person an opportunity of going before two Justices in a Court of ordinary Petty Sessions. If a person was willing to be tried by a single Justice, he might be so tried; but he (Mr. Sexton) wished to reserve to such person the right of going to the Petty Sessions. The arrangement for trial before a single Justice was one which contained a great deal of danger. The Justice might hold his Court at his private house, and hold an investigation at night, under such circumstances as to deprive the defendant of the advantage of having his case heard in open Court, in the presence of the representatives of the Press. Considering the state of feeling existing between the landlord and the tenant classes in Ireland, it would be dangerous to bring a man under this clause before a single magistrate. The magistrate might be a landlord himself, and a landlord unable to collect his rents, or he might be an agent. It would be absurd to bring a man before a single magistrate of that kind—it would be equivalent to convicting him at once off-hand. The landlord and the land agent, who divided between them the function of magistrate in Ireland, would be only too glad to convict. If the Amendment was agreed to, he proposed that not less than four days should expire between the hearing of the case by the magistrate and its hearing in the Petty Sessions Court. This interval was for the purpose of enabling the accused to put his defence in some sort of shape. In the case of a stranger, who had very few friends in the district, or in the country, it would
  1662
  be more necessary than it would be in the case of a person living in the neighbourhood that he should have ample time and opportunity for preparing his defence, and that publicity should be given to the proceedings. The Press should have an opportunity of hearing and reporting the case. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would see the reasonableness of his proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 6, after "month," insert as a new sub-section:—"The justice shall, on the application of any such person brought before him as aforesaid, adjourn the further hearing of the case to a petty sessions to be held for the petty sessions district within which such arrest took place, not less than four days after the date of such application, and to consist of at least two justices, on such person giving reasonable bail for his appearance at such petty sessions. Such court of petty sessions shall deal with the case in manner provided by 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and the Acts amending same, in the case of summary proceedings, and shall have the same power to deal with such person as in this section hereinbefore conferred on a justice of the peace."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the subsection be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment was a very reasonable one indeed, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept it. It amounted to this—that where a man had been arrested, his case might not be adjudicated on at once if he did not wish it to be, but might be taken to the Petty Sessions for hearing. That, surely, was not too much to ask. The practice of Mr. Clifford Lloyd used to be to take a whole bundle of men into his private room, harangue them and sentence them thereafter.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood the object of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to be that when a man was brought before one Justice, he might claim, on giving bail, to have his case adjourned for the purpose of having it heard before two Justices. That, he thought, was not unreasonable.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that if the Amendment were accepted, it would have an effect upon the next sub-section of the clause. They would have to consider who was to send to the Lord Lieutenant a report of the committal, stating the grounds of the committal and so on. They would have to consider whether it

  1663
  should be "the justice" or "the justices."
  MR. HEALYsaid, that difficulty could be got over by saying "the said justice or justices."
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to accept the Amendment as it stood, it was a question for consideration whether he would not take cases of this kind out of the Act altogether, by enabling the prisoners to appeal to Quarter Sessions, and using all the other methods of appeal which would be open to them in ordinary cases. He saw no objection to having two Justices to try a case, instead of one; but, in other respects, it seemed to him that the appeal ought to be the same in these cases as in other cases. If this were not so, they would be giving special protection to a prisoner who chose to take advantage of the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, what was wanted was to get security in this case—it did not matter how it was obtained, whether in the form of bail or in any other way.
  Amendment agreed to; Sub-section inserted accordingly.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to give an appeal to the County Court Judge, subject to the provisions and in manner provided by the 24th section of "The Petty Sessions (Ireland; Act, 1851." He did not, however, propose to move that, as the hon. Member for Monaghan, later on, would move an Amendment to give an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. He (Mr. Healy), however, had a second Amendment on the Paper to this part of the clause. It was to insert as a sub-section—
  "Upon the hearing of a charge under this section against a person, such person, or the husband or wife of such person, may, if such person thinks fit, be examined as an ordinary witness in the case, hut the failure to exercise this right shall not ho held to create any presumption against such person."
  He was aware that, as regarded the wife, this, if accepted, would be a departure from the ordinary law; but he thought that as the whole Act was a departure from the ordinary law, the Government could raise no complaint on that score. The Amendment was a very reasonable one. It merely said that an accused person could, if he thought fit, give evi-
  1664
  dence, and his wife, if she happened to be about, could do so likewise. A stranger to the district was not likely to have his wife with him, so that the Government could not say that they would be in any way damnified by passing this sub-section. With regard to the latter part of his Amendment, he did not suppose its principle would be readily admitted in the House of Commons; but there were enactments containing such a provision on the Statute Books of America. He only mentioned that fact to show that it had already entered the minds of some lawyers to lay down that when a prisoner could exercise a right, and did not do so, it should not be held to create any presumption against him. The Government, he thought, might accept the clause. There was very little in it one way or the other, and if the Government objected to it, he should not be prepared to fight it; but it would give a prisoner a slight advantage. It should not be forgotten that, as he had said, if a man's wife happened to be on the spot, it could not be said that the man was a stranger in the district. If the Amendment in one respect disregarded the ordinary theory of the law, that was no reason why, in a measure like this, it should not be accepted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 6, after "month," insert as a new sub-section:—"Upon the hearing of a charge under this section against a person, such person, or the husband or wife of such person, may, if such person thinks fit, be examined as an ordinary witness in the case, but the failure to exercise this right shall not be held to create any presumption against such person."—(Mr.Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the sub-section be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),said, there was no objection to the principle of the Amendment. He had accepted the principle in one of the Licensing Acts. The only exception he would take was that it would necessitate a slight revision of the 3rd clause. Inasmuch as they had not used the words in the previous clause, it would appear as though there was to be a presumption in the one class of case and not in the other. He would also suggest that the Amendment should end with the words "witness in the case."
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, and leave out the latter part of

  1665
  the sub-section. Probably he would bring it up again on Report.
  Amendment agreed to; Sub-section, as amended, inserted accordingly.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he begged to move the following Proviso: —
  "Provided, That no person shall be deemed a stranger, within the meaning of this section, if any justice of the peace, clergyman, or other credible person known to such justice, shall attend before such justice and certify, on oath, his acquaintance with such first-mentioned person, and that he is of good character."
  This was an Amendment which he should hope the Government would feel themselves able to agree to. It was one of a very simple character. A Justice of the Peace ought to be able to judge whether the testimony of a clergyman or other credible person who gave a good character to a man was sufficient.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 6, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "Pro-Tided, That no person shall he deemed a stranger, within the meaning of this section, if any justice of the peace, clergyman, or other credible person known to such justice, shall attend before such justice and certify, on oath, his acquaintance with such first-mentioned person, and that he is of good character."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell) would be disposed to retain the Amendment in that form, because the fact of a clergyman, or other credible person, certifying that the man was of good character did not prove that he was not a stranger. He might be a stranger of good character; but he could not be said not to be a stranger. The real point was, that he was under suspicious circumstances. Of course, the evidence of a respectable person that the man was of good character and good conduct would induce a Justice of the Peace to release him; but that was only part of the evidence which would prevent the stringency of this clause coming into operation; and if, by any means, the Justices of the Peace were not satisfied that persons could be released, they must give security under the section. Therefore, in either case, an arrested man would be safe. If there were a person of good character in the locality to testify in his behalf, he would not be doomed to be a stranger under suspicious
  1666
  circumstances, or, if there were any doubt upon that point, his friends would be able to give the securities required under the section. But to say that a man should not be deemed a stranger in the locality because some credible person said he was of good character would be inconsistent with the clause.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the Amendment said such a man should not be deemed a stranger within the district "within the meaning of this section," which was an entirely different point. He admitted that the evidence of a Justice of the Peace or other credible person would not prove whether a man was a stranger; but the Amendment said "for the purpose of the section," and that entirely disposed of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up a position that the Amendment was not necessary, and that no amount of evidence by a clergyman or Justice of the Peace would prove that a man was not a stranger; but the whole point was that it was to be "within the meaning of the section."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the wording of the Amendment was not very clear; but his main point was that he was trying here to define the evidence which should satisfy a Justice of the Peace. It might be that a Justice of the Peace or a clergyman might know that a man was generally of good character; but there might be circumstances in connection with persons otherwise of good character so suspicious that the evidence could not be conclusive. The decision ought to be left to the tribunal, for it might be that the circumstances of suspicion might outweigh the general good character. If that were so, and a Justice of the Peace came to the conclusion that the circumstances were so suspicious as to require security, then the persons who were satisfied of the absolute good faith and good character of the man had only to become security for him and he could be discharged.
  MR. M'COANsaid, the object of the Amendment was to rebut the presumption of suspicion which might lead to a man's committal. He did not wish to joke on so solemn a topic as the personality of the Home Secretary; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman happened to be walking along a country road in Ireland, and was arrested as a

  1667
  suspicious character, surely, if some clergyman came forward and declared that he knew him to be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that ought to be sufficient to rebut the presumption. That was only carrying the argument to an extreme, and he thought it should require an exceedingly strong combination of suspicious circumstances concerning a man arrested under this clause to outweigh, say, such testimony as he had mentioned.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANconsidered it very desirable that some measures should be taken to provide that persons should not be arrested again and again in several districts, after having again and again proved that they were of good character, and had lawful business. He himself had an Amendment on the Paper, designed to carry out this view; but the Chairman had said the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was pretty much to the same effect. In his (Mr. Sullivan's) view, however, there was a substantial difference; but in putting forward his opinions in connection with this present Amendment, he would ask the Government to make some concession in that direction. What he had intended to propose was, that any person arrested and able to produce a certificate from any magistrate or clergyman in Great Britain or Ireland, certifying his good character, that should be held sufficient to enable him to go free. The present Amendment would make it necessary that on the occasion of each arrest a clergyman or magistrate should come forward and give his testimony. His proposition was that a man having lawful business might provide himself with a certificate from reputable and respectable authorities, which would enable him to travel through the country without having to undergo '20 or SO different trials in as many different localities. Some reference to an idea of that kind was made earlier in the discussion, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said he had an objection to introducing a system of "passports" into Ireland. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman need be so delicate about introducing a system of passports after all that he had done in connection with this measure. The word "suspects" had
  1668
  become naturalized in Ireland, and in a little while the clÔture would be naturalized; and, therefore, he did not think there would be any very great objection to the introduction of passports to enable persons who had lawful business, and who were of good character, to avoid being again and again arrested, and having to go over the same ground to establish their innocence. He would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government should consider whether some such plan could not be adopted with this Amendment.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that, under a Bill of this kind, something like the passport system was necessary to enable a man to avoid arrest and trial. Suppose a newspaper correspondent or a commercial traveller was in Ireland, was he to be stopped in every town and put on his trial, and have to prove in some mysterious way that he was not a person of ill-purpose travelling for a suspicious motive? Would it not be better to allow him to produce, at the beginning of his journey, evidence that he was of good character, and travelling for a good purpose? He thought that was a natural and reasonable proposition. He supposed every Member of the House who had travelled in foreign countries had met with something of that kind. It had been his misfortune at Brindisi to be arrested and taken into custody on suspicion, of being connected with a gang of smugglers, and he should have been glad of some person who would have come forward and shown that he was not a smuggler. The Committee should look the tiling in the face; and as there was a foreign system of Government in Ireland there might as well be a foreign system of passport. He was in favour of the Amendment, and thought the Government ought to accept it.
  MR. MACFARLANEthought the suggestion that passes should be provided by proper authorities was very reasonable; for it was possible that respectable people might be put to great inconvenience at many places—such as commercial travellers and newspaper correspondents. The system of passes might very well be adopted by the Government, the passes to be issued from Dublin for the protection of people from annoyance by the police. He thought this clause was one of great importance,

  1669
  for it seemed to him that the certificate of a Justice of the Peace, or a clergyman, or other credible person, would meet all that was required to enable a magistrate to discharge a man. If, however, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) insisted on this Amendment, he would support it.
  Mr. A. E. D. ELLIOTsaid, the question was not as to introducing passports, but as to what evidence would be necessary for a man taken before a magistrate.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, there were two conditions required to enable a Justice of the Peace to act under this clause. First of all, the person must be a stranger; and, secondly, the Justice of the Peace must consider that he was in a proclaimed district under suspicious circumstances. In that respect, the clause differed from the previous clause. Under the previous clause, a policeman was entitled to arrest a man under suspicious circumstances at night; under this clause the police were entitled to arrest strangers under suspicious circumstances whether at night or day. It was clear that if a person was arrested, and then got a Justice of the Peace, or a clergyman, or other credible person in the district to vouch for his good character and honesty, he ought not to be considered a stranger. He could not be a stranger under those circumstances, because he would be known to persons of repute and position in the district. Therefore, he submitted that he had made out his claim in regard to where evidence of that kind was produced a magistrate should be checked. If a man was not a stranger, the magistrate would be within his right in imprisoning a man; but, as the clause now stood, the question as to whether a man was a stranger or not was practically left to the police to decide, and, in most cases, the magistrate would only decide whether the man was in a proclaimed district under suspicious circumstances. He thought it was fair that if, under those circumstances, an accused person, arrested under the provisions of this extraordinary clause, produced some magistrate, clergyman, or other credible person, to testify in his behalf that he was not a stranger in the district, the magistrate ought not to have jurisdiction, and the man ought not to be brought under the operation of this clause. He thought the Govern-
  1670
  ment might have met him in this matter, and in consequence of their answer he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the deposition of any person that a man was of good character had anything at all to do with the question of his being a stranger or not; but being a stranger under suspicious circumstances was not a rebuttal of facts, but an utter presumption against the man. The evidence of a magistrate, or clergyman, or other credible person that a man arrested was of good character ought to be sufficient to rebut that presumption. If there was evidence of the fact of the man doing anything, then such testimony would not be evidence as against the fact, but as against the presumption; and he apprehended that in any Court in the world, the evidence of a magistrate, clergyman, or other credible person in the neighbourhood would be quite sufficient to rebut the presumption against the man. Upon that ground he should support the Amendment.
  MR. DILLONexplained that what the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said was that it was not a question of the effect of this evidence, but it was a question of having a definition of the word "stranger." They wanted to know what a "stranger" was; and it was very important to have that defined, because the term was a very wide one. It might mean a man who had not a dwelling-house in the district, or simply that a man was not known in the district, and those two distinctions were entirely different in effect. The point of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was that a man known by people of good position and standing ought not to be called a stranger. If the hon. Member went to Cork, where he had no house, would he be considered a stranger, although he could call a hundred witnesses who could swear to his good character? Under the clause, however, he might be treated as a stranger; and if he (Mr. Dillon) himself went to Tipperary he might be treated as a stranger. The object of the Amendment was to place something like a narrow definition upon the word stranger, and to rule that "stranger" could not include a man who was known to persons of standing and repute. He

  1671
  could not understand the contention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who seemed to say that it really did not matter to a man whether he was put under a rule of bail or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that if a man was known in a neighbourhood he could easily get bail; but there were cases in which people who knew a man would not wish to become bail, and there was a great difference between being discharged absolutely and being placed under a rule of bail. He objected to a man being put under a rule of bail for good behaviour, and there was a marked difference between deciding that a magistrate, upon receiving certain specific evidence that a man was not a stranger, but was known to be of good character and honest, should discharge him, and say that he should be held to bail for good behaviour.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in fact, proposed that where a man was known to respectable inhabitants of a district, it was not necessary for him to be known to the police. The Secretary of State for the Home Department resented that as quite intolerable, and refused to accept such a suggestion; but the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman really called attention to a very curious distinction between government in Ireland and government in England. In England it was the very reverse of a compliment to a man for him to be known to the police; while, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it was only that class of persons who were likely to be supporters of the Government in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 161: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the Government bad introduced a new system, which was practically martial law, into Ireland. There was about to be an Industrial Exhibition held in Dublin, and during that Exhibition an enormous influx of visitors from America and other places might be expected; and unless they were protected they would be liable to arrest under the Alien Act, and to be worried in such a way that probably, alter the first few of such visitors, the influx would cease altogether. The section he pro-
  1672
  posed provided for giving a certain amount of protection to those who visited Ireland to see the Industrial Exhibition, or for other honest purposes, and to furnish them with an easy means of avoiding such annoyance and worry as they were otherwise sure to be subjected to. Manypersons coming from France, or America, or Holland or any other country, upon an honest and lawful errand, could, under this proposal, be provided with an easy means of identification, and of showing that they were upon a lawful errand in the country, and ought not to be interfered with. In that way a visitor would avoid the interference of the police, which must necessarily take place if something was not done in the way of giving a passport. The question whether the passport system might not be further extended to natives of Ireland might be raised hereafter. But he thought the Committee might adopt this Amendment, which would prevent irrevocable damage being done to the Exhibition and to the country by keeping away foreigners.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 12, at end, add, "Provided always, that an alien visiting Ireland or travelling there between the first day of August and the last day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, who shall within one week of his arrival have deposited with the Consul of his Nation in Dublin a notification of his name, nationality, and description, and received under the Consular seal a certificate reciting and acknowledging the same, shall upon the production of such certificate be considered a person not within the provisions of this section, and not liable to arrest or detention under such provisions."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the best way to encourage people to come to the Exhibition was to put the country in a state of tranquillity. An hon. Member had said that Ireland was the most hospitable country in the world; but it seemed to him (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) that strangers coming over to visit an unpopular landlord, for instance, might feel a little uncomfortable at the present time. If the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Commins) looked at the Amendment, he would see that under it every alien would be able to put himself out of the clause, because every alien was entitled to a certificate from his Consul saying that he was an

  1673
  alien. But such certificate did not say that he was a respectable man, and he might be the greatest ruffian in the world, and might have formidable weapons upon him. Yet, by this proposed clause, because a man had a certificate, he could not be touched. Surely the hon. and learned Member could not intend that? For that reason he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, if a person was discovered under the circumstances mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he might be sentenced to three months' imprisonment under the present law by summary jurisdiction.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there might be many other suspicious circumstances; but all that was proposed here was that a mere declaration that a man was an alien would take him out of the clause, although he might be, to the knowledge of the Consul, the greatest ruffian in the world.
  MR. HEALYremarked that, earlier in the evening, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had used the same argument, saying that if a man was found with suspicious -weapons he could get three months' imprisonment under the ordinary law; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the same statement. Those were specimens of the arguments with which the Government met Irish Members.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). It proposes that henceforth no person shall be imprisoned under this section, provided that he shall give securities for his good behaviour. This Amendment cannot be proposed, because it would alter the general law of the country.
  MR. SEXTON,in moving to omit the six principal cities of Ireland from the operation of the Bill, said, that the provisions elsewhere in the Bill gave ample security, and the Bill could not be considered necessary for Dublin or other Irish cities. There was to be a great National Exhibition in Dublin, which, it was hoped, would bring people from all
  1674
  parts of the world. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said strangers would visit the country, if the country was tranquil; but how could the country be expected to be tranquil, when the police were at liberty at any hour of the day or night to arrest a stranger, and take him before a magistrate? People from Australia, or America, or other distant places, would not visit Ireland if, in the very streets of the capital, they were to be exposed to annoyance from policemen on the shallowest pretext. If there was any reason to suppose that the efficiency of the Act would suffer by this proposition he should not make it; but one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleagues had admitted that the cities of Ireland were not in the condition which had produced that against which this Bill was directed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had given Notice to propose that the Curfew hours should not be further continued in the city.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, at end of clause, to add, "This clause shall not apply to the cities of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Galway, and Water-ford."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) must entirely misapprehend the object of this clause. If it was to apply to agrarian crime, it was quite as much required for the leaders and agents of the Fenian Conspiracy, and the assassinations by which that conspiracy was supported; and, if he were to give an opinion, he should say that the clause was more necessary for the great towns of Ireland than for the smaller towns. See what would be the result of such an exemption! It would make these cities the places of refuge—the Alsatia of all those people—and the action of the clause would be entirely defeated. If there had been this clause before, the murders in Phoenix Park might have been anticipated by seizing the murderers. This clause, he ventured to state, was more applicable to Dublin and other great cities than to any other parts of the country.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had

  1675
  stated that his desire was to use this clause against murderers and conspirators. He (Mr. Parnell) apprehended the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to make a very wide use of the clause in a large city like Dublin if he expected it to be of any use against murderous conspiracies which he supposed might exist in Ireland. A clause of this kind would be absolutely useless for such a purpose in a large city, while it would only afford a temptation to the police in large cities to harass people who were going about their lawful business. He could quite understand that the police in a city like Dublin might think it of the greatest importance, and quite in accord with their duty, to harass people who might come from the United States of America in order to visit the popular National Industrial Exhibition in autumn next; and he thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department might have excluded Dublin from the operation of this clause during the period of the Exhibition—that was, during the three mouths stated in the Amendment. The clause was based on the clause in the Act of 1875, which was admittedly brought in for the purpose of dealing with an agrarian conspiracy. Agrarian conspirators, it was manifest, had to move about the country from place to place, and in moving about the country they were liable to come under the notice of the police; but any person going to, and remaining in, a city with the intention of committing a murder or other outrage would not be at all likely to come under their notice in the manner hoped for under this clause. It appeared to him that it was only an excessive desire to inflict discomfort on all the humbler classes in Ireland that induced the Government to reject all consideration of this Amendment. It was perfectly intolerable that a clause of this kind should apply to Dublin or Cork, and there was not a shadow of excuse for it. In what way would this clause have helped the Government to prevent the murders in Phoenix Park? It would not have been of the slightest assistance to prevent those murders, and he hoped the Government would show a desire to meet the Irish Members in this matter, at all events, by agreeing to omit Dublin from the clause during the period of the Exhibition.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, this clause must be read in connection with the 20th clause of the Bill. It could only apply to a proclaimed district; and if the Lord Lieutenant, under the 20th clause, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, decided to proclaim a district, it would be unreasonable to say that if the Lord Lieutenant arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary to proclaim a part of Ireland, he should be met with a clear statement in the Act that, notwithstanding his conclusion, he could not apply the Act. Unfortunately, the condition of Dublin, at the present time, was not at all satisfactory; and it would be a curious and a painful Return which would show how many people were under police protection in the streets of Dublin at this moment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid that, judging from the Returns in that House of the hundreds of unclaimed corpses in London, there were a large number of persons in this City who, if they were not under police protection, ought to be; but there was another point to which he would refer. This clause, under which it was sought to exempt the chief cities in Ireland, was, in reality, the only clause for the arrest of "suspects;" and when the Secretary of State for the Homo Department said that if this clause had been in operation he might have been able to prevent such terrible occurrences as the assassinations in Phoenix Park, he forgot that he had already a law for "suspects" in his hands, and that the possession of that law, wielded with sufficient vigour for a long period of time, had not in the slightest degree interfered with the murderers, and he feared that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find this clause equally ineffective. He would call attention to this fact—that Dublin and Cork were the chief places of debarkation for persons coming into Ireland. If persons of the poorer condition of life who disembarked at Dublin, or at Cork, could once get to the districts of the country where their friends live, and where they were known, and where they could easily obtain references, there would be no danger whatever of such persons suffering under a fair administration of this clause. But supposing the police arrested a number of recently-arrived men in Dublin or in Cork, men who were 50 or 60, or possibly 100 miles away from

  1677
  home, who knew nobody in Cork or in Dublin, a great injustice would be done these men by requiring them to give surety by entering into recognizances and sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Such men might be kept in gaol for an indefinite time simply because of their being arrested in Cork or Dublin, the place of their debarkation, and the place in which it was utterly impossible for them to obtain references or sureties, knowing no one in the place to whom they might apply. Hon. Members on the other side of the House repudiated the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Government seemed to be anxious to pass a Bill which would be as aggravating and as irritating as possible to the poorer classes of the population of Ireland; but certainly he did not see any sign about this clause which was calculated to produce any other impression than that against which hon. Members opposite protested so vehemently. This clause seemed a poor man persecution clause, and he was afraid it would be regarded in that light in Ireland. He did not think it would be of the slightest use in preventing crime; but it would be of great use in promoting discontent, which was closely akin to dissatisfaction.
  MR. SEXTONhoped that, if the Government could not see their way to assent to this Amendment, they would, at least, allow the clause to be inoperative in Dublin during the few months that the forthcoming Industrial Exhibition was open. He was perfectly certain that nothing would be lost to the country if this clause was allowed not to be effective in the City of Dublin during that time. If it did operate during this period it would sensibly hurt the Exhibition, because it would prevent many strangers from attending. Reference had been made by the Secretary of State for the Homo Department to the recent assassinations in Phoenix Park; but, surely, if the clause had been in operation at the time of these assassinations, it would have been of little service in discovering the assassins, because the police must have suspected the men before they put the clause into operation, and up to the present time there had not been a scintilla of evidence to show that they had any knowledge whatever who the criminals were. He must protest against the Secre-
  1678
  tary of State for the Home Department citing the recent assassinations as an argument in favour of this clause.
  MR. METGEsaid, there was only one possible excuse for the clause, and for the proposing of the Amendment in the modified form which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had suggested.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that that is not the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment before the Committee is to exempt the cities of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Limerick, Galway, and Waterford from the operation of the clause.
  MR. METGEthought that the only way in which the Government could justify the application of the clause to the City of Dublin would be for them to bring forward evidence of having suspected a single individual who had any connection what ever with the treacherous crime committed recently in Phoenix Park. No one deplored that crime more than he did; but he thought when the Government had the audacity to refer to that crime in this House, in order to influence and prejudice the sentiments of hon. Gentlemen opposite and to get their support to this Bill, they should, at least, bring forward one case to support their arguments of an individual who had been suspected in connection with this crime, and who this clause would have affected had it been in operation at the time of the murders. As had been pointed out by hon. Members around him, they were to have an Exhibition in Dublin, which was of vital importance, as he believed, to the trade of Ireland generally. He (Mr. Metge) was connected in various ways with several people interested in the trade of Ireland, and he knew that all looked forward to the success of the forthcoming Exhibition with deep interest. The only possible effect of enforcing this clause would be that it would break down, in a very great measure, the success of that undertaking, and thereby give rise to increased irritation amongst the trading classes in Dublin and in Ireland generally. For these reasons, if the Government were about to enforce this clause during the time of that Exhibition, they ought, at least, to show that under the law as it at present existed their powers were not sufficient to reach such people as committed the recent crime in Phœnix Park.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he could not help thinking, when listening to this discussion, how very little the facts and arguments of hon. Members opposite touched the point under discussion, as that point was looked at by the people who were responsible for the safety of Ireland. He might almost say, if there was one clause about which, at that moment, the Irish people were anxious, it was this particular clause. The clauses of the Act, about which the Irish Go-vernment at this moment were so anxious, were those directed against secret societies and their agents; and he did not scruple to say that in one of those very towns which it was proposed to exempt from the operation of the clause there were a number of strangers of the most suspicious kind—of that sort of suspicion which would not bring them within the scope of the Protection of Person and Property Act referred to by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), but strangers about whom the Government would very much like to know something, and as long as the Government did not know that something they were most anxious indeed. It was in towns such as those proposed to be exempted, where, if any outrage was in contemplation, strangers from a distance mostly collected; and from these towns they broke out into the agrarian districts and committed outrages; and from these towns they plotted outrages against officials of which they had had a foretaste, and of which, if this Bill did not pass, and pass very promptly, they would have some heart-rending specimens, he was afraid, at no distant time. Such was the case in one of the towns in Ireland; and that town might be Dublin, although he did not say it was. There was, however, no reason why Dublin should not be for the moment the centre where these strangers collected; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said very justly that this clause would not be put in force except a district was proclaimed. The Committee might be very certain that as soon as this Act was passed with this clause in it, the Government would take good care to proclaim any part of the country, rural or urban, where strangers of this sort were lurking, and they would take very good care not to proclaim any town which was free from
  1680
  these persons. This clause was most essential; and he must say that if the Bill was to be discussed at this length on every clause like the present—and the operation of this clause was well known and had proved to be innocuous to law-abiding citizens—very great calamities might happen before it became law.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that if hon. Members would just calmly consider the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, they would not fail to perceive that if there be any clause in this Bill which was capable of protecting Dublin or any other town it was certainly not this clause. Let them imagine there was a band of strangers of the most desperate purposes in a town in Ireland, say Cork, or Dublin; that they were men of a powerful organization, and that they had got £1,500 or £2,000, or it might be £5,000 at band, what effect would this clause have upon three or four of the most desperate of these men? Why, a Justice might require one of these men to give security by entering into recognizances, and find sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the ensuing six months, and, in default, commit him to prison. Well, of course, an assassin of that kind, with £5,000 at his banker's, would be quite ready to offer £50 or £100 security, and he would have two or three of his kidney who would stand surety to the extent of £50 or £100, if necessary; and if they had a great crime to carry out, they would just have as little regard to the estreating of their recognizances as they would for any item of loss in connection with their horrible business. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it was the object of the Government to put down desperate assassination and to prevent great excesses, this clause would be as ineffective as a net-work of cob-webs would be to stop a rush of buffaloes. This clause, however, would be of the greatest use in worrying and annoying inoffensive strangers; but it would be totally ineffective against desperate, determined criminals.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. DILLONsaid, that before the Question was put, he wished to make a

  1681
  few observations. He distinctly disapproved of the clause; but he would not oppose it if the Committee could only be assured that it would be used in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He opposed it because it was in the power of the magistrates and of the Executive Government in Ireland to use the powers it conferred in a most tyrannical and a most extravagant fashion. They knew how the powers of the famous Act of Edward III. had been employed; and the point he wished to place before the Committee was that, although for some time the clause might be used in the way the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised it should be used, they had no authority whatever that it would not be used as the Statute of Edward III. had been enforced, for entirely different purposes to those for which it had been asked. The Act of Edward III. empowered magistrates to bind over people to be of good behaviour; but who were the people who were bound over under that Act by the magistrates to be of good behaviour? They knew that some 10 or 12, possibly 15 or 20, people were bound over under that Act to keep the peace, and amongst that number he defied the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was a single individual who he or his Predecessor (Mr. W. E. Forster) would suspect for a moment of any intention to commit an outrage. They knew that some of those imprisoned under the Act of Edward III. were ladies of the highest character, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would deny that they were ladies of the highest character; and the worst that could be alleged against them was that their conduct was calculated to produce intimidation. Amongst the number imprisoned were several Catholic priests. One Catholic priest, under the Act, underwent three months' imprisonment; and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford to say that anything at all substantial could be alleged against the character of that reverend gentleman. Would the Government give them any security that this clause would be used simply against men who were suspected of being agents of assassination societies, or men who came to Ireland for the purpose of assassination and outrage? If the Government would give that assurance, he and
  1682
  his hon. Friends would withdraw their opposition to the clause. They wanted to know that the clause would not be used against men well-known in Ireland—men of respectable character and entirely above suspicion. Men who were dimply found out of their own districts might be treated as strangers under the clause; and he had no doubt that many of such men would positively refuse to find sureties, if required to do so, because they would not care to run the risk of forfeiting their bail, not knowing what would be held by the Government to be "good behaviour." He would give the Committee an instance which might come home to any one of them. Suppose anyone were required to give bail under the clause, and that afterwards they went down to the country to make a speech condemning the landlords, or condemning the Government, or criticizing the action of the Commissioners, how did they know that the views of the Government with regard to good government might not alter between now and then; because it must be remembered that the views of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland were very much altered during the course of his administration of Irish affairs. They might find their bail forfeited, and their friends landed in very great sacrifices. The reason why he particularly opposed the clause was not because he feared the way in which the Government would use it; but because he feared that something might happen which happened under the Coercion Bill of last year—that the Government might get the clause, plausibly to use for certain purposes, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford got the Coercion Bill last year—to arrest assassins, and outrage-mongers, and dissolute ruffians; and that it might be used by the officials in Ireland to arrest men against whom they could allege nothing, except that they were political opponents. He did not know that this clause might not be used in the same way as the Act of last year was used, for the purpose of the wholesale arrest of political opponents. The practical effect of the clause would be that no man of position could say anything or do anything at all against the Government; and if he were out of his own neighbourhood he would be subjected to the risk of immediate arrest.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to join his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) in his opposition to the clause. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had just complained of the length of time the Irish Members had taken up in discussing the various Amendments proposed to the Bill; and, in the same breath, the right hon. Gentleman confessed that there was no clause about which the Government were more anxious than this. That admission in itself, to some extent, explained the reason why he and his hon. Friends had occupied so much attention in discussing the clause. The anxiety which the Government felt in reference to the clause was, no doubt, a measure of its importance; the importance of the clause was the reason why so much time had been occupied in its discussion. He had, however, yet to learn that less than five hours was an excessive time to occupy in the discussion of a clause which would enable every policeman in Ireland for the next three years to arrest every stranger he might come across. The powers conferred by the clause were so drastic, so despotic, and so extraordinary that he and his hon. Friends would be false to their trust, and very cowardly indeed in the presence of this Committee, if they did not speak out upon this subject, and speak out at such length as might be necessary to show the hypocrisy of the Government. They knew full well that the Coercion Act of last year was obtained for one purpose, but used for another. It was obtained for the arrest of the assassin, but it was used to arrest political opponents; it was obtained as a weapon against the midnight marauder, but it was used for the purposes of arrest by day. They had heard that the clause under notice would be used against the agents of secret societies and the emissaries of secret organizations. Ho had no doubt that if the Statute of Edward III. were given up and disused, this clause would be made to take its place, and that priests, and respectable artizans, and ladies would be arrested under this clause, which dealt with strangers. The Irish Members had sought in vain for a definition of the term "stranger." They had asked that a stranger should be considered a person unknown, or a person residing at a certain distance; but no; the Secretary of State for the Homo Department would not even consent to
  1684
  such a definition, for he feared that the elastic action of the Irish police might be somewhat retarded if a definition were given. The effect of the clause would be that, in the course of the next three years, every man, woman, and child in Ireland would, at some time or another, be placed at the mercy of any policeman they might come in contact with. They had asked for a definition of "suspicious circumstances," and they had asked for some indication of what was to constitute "a criminal intent." But all their pleading had been in vain, and their desires were unheeded: Suspicious circumstances were just whatever might strike the more or less ignorant mind and dull imagination of any ordinary policeman. A stranger was not to be brought before a Superior Judge, or even before a County Court Judge, or one of thoses tipendiary magistrates who were so learned in the law; but, unfortunately, if a stranger—it might be he was a tourist—fell into the hands of a policeman by day or by night, ho was to be brought before one of the ordinary magistrates of the country. The ordinary magistrates were either landlords or agents, for the Commission of the Peace was divided between the owners of the land and those who were paid a percentage upon the rents paid by the tenants. He need not say how, in the present condition of feeling in the country, these men would view a stranger who might be brought before him, and who might not be able to give a very lucid account of himself. By a reversal of common sense, a stranger, who had probably no friends in the locality in which he was found, was asked to give a good account of himself; and, finally, he was required to give sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for six months. They had already discussed the question of good behaviour, and hon. Gentlemen seemed to be a little surprised that Irishmen did not understand what was meant by good behaviour. He could only say that, when artizans putting up huts had been held to be persons of bad character, when ladies engaged in mere works of charity had been held to be persons of bad behaviour, the judgments of the Irish people had been broken to pieces, and their faculties had been pulverized by the decisions given by Resident Magistrates as to what con-

  1685
  stituted good behaviour. The clause was a double-edged weapon put in the hands of the police, and which was to be used in as tyrannical a manner as possible against public liberty. When the story of the next three years came to be told, it would be found that offences against the public liberty as disgraceful—though, perhaps, not so hurtful to individuals— as any committed during the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been committed.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that, as to the importance of the clause, he agreed with his hon. Friends and the Government. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had told the Committee the clause was one of the most important of the whole Bill; and he (Dr. Commins) thought that any person who read it would see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not misstate its importance. Last Tuesday, two important decisions were given in the Courts of Queen's Bench—one in the English Queen's Bench and the other in the Irish Queen's Bench. Both decisions were with regard to the requirement of people to be of good behaviour. The Irish case was that of "Hogan v. the Justices of County Kerry," and the Irish Queen's Bench held that it was perfectly legal to commit Miss Margaret Hogan, a member of the Ladies' Land League, to prison for six months, in default of her finding bail to be of good behaviour. Strangely enough, the case of "Beatty v. Gillbanks" was held the same day in the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster, and Mr. Justice Cave and his brother Justice held that no one could be committed under the Statute of Edward III. in default of bail, and no one could be bound over to be of good behaviour, unless some overt act of bad behaviour was proved against them. The Courts of Ireland had been using, for the last three or four months, precisely the Act that was appealed against on Tuesday last at Westminster; they had been committing to gaol educated ladies of the highest character, simply because it entered into the heads of policemen to disagree with certain acts of those ladies, acts which any reasonable person would be inclined to regard as acts of charity. This section proposed to legalize this kind of proceedings, and it did so without openly declaring the intentions of
  1686
  its framers. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, who seemed to have taken gentle care of the section, would not, though pressed on all sides, say what use it was intended to make of it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give the Committee the slightest idea as to who was to constitute a stranger; but, from the discussion, it was perfectly clear that a person might be considered a stranger within a bowshot of his own house. The section itself did not afford the Committee any information as to what kind of persons were to be subject to the penalty it imposed. It was evident, though the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not admit it, that the whole object of the section was to place a weapon in the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or of the Government of Ireland, to suppress any opinion they might think fit. It was just possible that a person who stepped upon a public platform—he might be a Member of Parliament desirous of addressing his constituents—might be considered a stranger for aught the Committee knew. Any person who expressed an opinion which was not approved of by the police in the neighbourhood, or by the Resident Magistrates—the names of some of whom the Irish people knew too well—might be called upon to give security to keep the peace, or, in default of finding sureties, they might be committed to prison. Then they came to the fact that sureties for good behaviour might be estreated, because of words spoken, though there was no breach of the peace. Though there was no prosecutable offence, sureties might be estreated simply for some word spoken that might be alleged to be seditious, or alleged to be contrary to the law. It was not possible to conceive anything so unjust. The inevitable result of such a law, administered in the way it would be in Ireland, would be that hundreds of people who, possibly out of friendship, might have gone surety for a person alleged to be a stranger would be ruined. Regarding this as a deliberative attempt to crush the liberties of the Irish people, he should vote against the clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 31: Majority 163.

  AYES.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Feilden, Major-General R. J.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Agnew, W.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Allen, H. G.

  Fitzpatrick, hn. B.E.B.

  Armitage, B.

  Fitzwilliam, hon.H.W.

  Armitstead, G.

  Flower, C.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Fry, T.

  Baring, T. C.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.

  Bentinck, rt. hon. G. C.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Biddell, W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Grafton, F. W.

  Boord, T. W.

  Grantham, W.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Brand, H. R.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Brett, R. B.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Brinton, J.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Broadhurst, H.

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

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Heneage, E.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Bryce, J.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Hill, T. R.

  Campbell -Bannerman, H.

  Holden, I.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Carington, hn. Colonel W. H. P.

  Holms, J.

  Home, Lt.-Col.D. M.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Howard, E. S.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Howard, G. J.

  Chaine, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  James, Sir H.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  James, W. H.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Jardine, R.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Compton, F.

  Johnson, W. M.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Jones-Parry, L.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Creyke, R.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Leake, R.

  Cropper, J.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Lee, H.

  Crum, A.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Leigh, R.

  Davey, H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Davies, R.

  Loder, R.

  Do Worms, Baron H.

  Long, W. H.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Dodds, J.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Mackintosh, C F.

  Duckham, T.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Duff, R. W.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Miles, C. W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Monk, C. J.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Moreton, Lord

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Errington, G.

  Morley, A.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Mulholland, J.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  1688

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Noel, E.

  Stanton, W. J.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Paget, T. T.

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

  Pease, A.

  Thornhill, T.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Porter, A. M.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Walter, J.

  Ramsay, J.

  Warton, C N.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Rathbone, W.

  Whitbread, S.

  Richard, H.

  Whitley, E.

  Roberts, J.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Rogers, J. E T.

  Williamson, S.

  Rothschild. Sir N.M. de

  Willis, W.

  Round, J.

  Winn, R.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Rylands, P.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Salt, T.

  Woodall, W.

  Schreiber, C.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Wroughton, P.

  Severne, J. E.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  TELLERS.

  Smith, E.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  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.

  Cowen, J.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Dillon, J.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Gill, H. J.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Healy, T. M.

  Sexton, T.

  Labouchere, H.

  Shell, E.

  Lalor, R.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Leamy, E.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Synan, E. J.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Martin, P.

  Marum, E. M.

  TELLERS.

  Metge, R. H.

  Power, R.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10 (Newspapers).
  MR. DILLWYNmoved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 14, to leave out "wherever." He said he did not object to the Lord Lieutenant having power to prevent objectionable foreign publications being brought into Ireland; but he strongly objected to the suppression under this clause of Irish newspapers themselves. There was ample power under the existing law to prevent an abuse of the liberty of the Press. To him it appeared that the Bill rather

  1689
  tended to encourage secret societies than otherwise. They had already prohibited public meetings, and now an endeavour was being made to prevent the free expression of public opinion through the medium of the Press. He would not enter into any lengthy argument, but simply say that all the Amendments of which he had given Notice on this clause had the same object in view. These Amendments would prevent newspapers published in Ireland being dealt with under this clause, for if the Amendments were adopted, the clause would read—"Where after the passing of this Act any newspaper printed and published in any foreign country," &c, should be dealt with by the Lord Lieutenant. The omission of the word "wherever" would clearly make it impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to establish a censorship over the newspapers published in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out the word "wherever."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'wherever' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment would certainly defeat the object the Government had in view by the clause. It was quite plain that if this Amendment were accepted everything that was done by foreign newspapers could be done by Irish newspapers, and yet the latter would not come under the operation of the clause. He knew of no power of dealing with Irish newspapers, except by the process of common procedure. This clause was intended to make quite clear the power of seizure. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) must be perfectly aware that the legality of the power which had been exercised by the Irish Government of seizing newspapers—without which he ventured to say very great evil would have ensued—had been challenged. One of the intentions of this clause was to make it quite clear that the Lord Lieutenant's power to seize newspapers was legal; and if the power were confined to foreign newspapers, the Irish Government would have no remedy against Irish newspapers, except they proceeded before a jury. The hypothesis on which they had all along proceeded was that that was no remedy at all. If this Amendment were adopted, Irish newspapers would have the power to reprint the ob-
  1690
  jectionable part of a foreign newspaper, and thus do all the mischief which it was the object of the clause to prevent. He, therefore, thought his hon. Friend would see that his objection should be taken to the clause as a whole. To introduce this immunity for newspapers printed in Ireland would be to allow the whole effect of the Foreign Press to operate as strongly as it did now. It was not necessary to go into particulars. It was quite obvious that Irish newspapers could and would, if the Amendment were adopted, reprint the very passages from foreign newspapers which the Government considered so objectionable.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that if Irish newspapers did reprint objectionable passages from foreign newspapers, he took it they would be liable to prosecution, such as that which the Government were now carrying on in respect to The Freiheit.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the prosecution of The Freiheit was brought before an English jury; but if the case of an Irish newspaper were brought before an Irish jury, there would be no chance of a verdict being obtained against the paper. It was upon that hypothesis the Government had proceeded in the previous clauses, and it was upon that hypothesis they were proceeding now. If the only remedy possessed against objectionable Irish newspapers was that of proceeding before an Irish jury there would be no remedy at all.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORobserved, that as the Bill progressed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was gradually abandoning the practice of advancing arguments in favour of the clauses he had to propose. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) invited the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give a single instance in which any of the newspapers in Ireland called National had reprinted from an American newspaper any matter which would come fairly within the scope of this clause. He also invited the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give the Committee a single case in which an Irish newspaper, charged with an offence against the law, had been brought before an Irish jury, and in which the newspaper had not been convicted. There were two cases quite familiar to the minds of anybody who had paid any attention to Irish history, the cases in

  1691
  which Mr. A. M. Sullivan, for many years a respected Member of that House, and Mr. Richard Pigott, were brought before Dublin juries for writing in newspapers objectionable matter in connection with the execution of three Irishmen in Manchester, on the charge of taking part in the rescue of some Fenians. Although Mr. A. M. Sullivan was then, as now, a man against whoso respectability not a word could be uttered, ho was convicted by a jury of his fellow-citizens in Dublin, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. In the same way, Mr. Richard Pigott was convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was utterly unable to give a single instance in proof of the statement that the Jury Law had broken down with regard to newspaper prosecutions in Ireland; in fact, all the cases of which they had experience went to show just the contrary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Irish newspapers could, and would, if that Amendment were adopted, copy the most objectionable matter from American newspapers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know, as well as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did, that the only Irish newspaper which, in recent days, had copied from an American paper an objectionable article was The Dublin Daily Express—the organ of the Conservative landlords of Ireland. He did not think the right hon, and learned Gentleman would stand up and say that if The Dublin Daily Express copied some other objectionable article from an American paper it would be prosecuted under the clause. The fact of the matter was that this clause was not intended to put down the wild, revolutionary, and murderous newspapers of America, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given such eloquent descriptions; but the object of it was to establish a censorship over the Press of Ireland, so that any newspaper which did not suit the good graces of the Lord Lieutenant should be suppressed.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, it was impossible for the Secretary of State for the Homo Department to cite a single instance in which an Irish newspaper had been prosecuted, and in which a fair verdict had not been given. It was a remarkable fact that verdicts in the case of such prosecutions had invariably gone against the newspaper involved. It was,
  1692
  therefore, well that when a change of the law in respect to newspapers was sought, the Government should give them at least one instance where the law, as it now stood, had broken down. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to take the sting out of this clause, by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). If any person outside Ireland wished to send newspapers into the country they would never be at a loss for the means of doing it, notwithstanding this clause. He was certain the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be aware that persons interested in the circulation of newspapers would be able to force that circulation if they were disposed to do so. There would be abundant ways of effecting that in Ireland; and, by way of illustration, he need only refer to what took place in Russia, Italy, and Austria.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished the Committee to bear in mind that an Act passed last Session gave an alternative to the owners of newspapers with respect to the Law of Libel, and that a provision which might not have been necessary previous to the passing of that Act had become most necessary after it was passed. The Act to which he referred had not attracted the amount of attention to which he thought it was entitled, inasmuch as it completely reversed the principle of Lord Campbell's Act, that principle being that the person supposed to have spoken the libel was responsible; whereas the Act of last Session made the person supposed to have spoken the libellous matter responsible, in the first instance, for the printer's conduct. Formerly, under Lord Campbell's Act, it rested with the discretion of the owner of a newspaper whether he would report libel, because he was responsible for publishing it; but the Act of last year reversed that principle, and now the person supposed to have spoken the libel was by law liable for what the owner of a newspaper chose to publish. Therefore, he thought that this precaution was fully required, owing to the change in the law made during the last few nights of the previous Session.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was a distinction between a newspaper published abroad and a newspaper published in Ireland, and it was this—In the latter case, the paper was owned and published

  1693
  by someone in the country, and if it contained matter inciting to the commission of treason or violence, he took it that the publisher or the owner could be proceeded against under the other clause of the Act; whereas, if the owner and publisher were abroad, that would be impossible. But he thought the sting of the whole clause would be taken out by the concession which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made; and he did not think that the clause, as altered, would create in Ireland, so far as the Press was concerned, a state of things greatly differing from the conditions which at present existed there. Yet he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and that he would admit into the clause some definition of the word "intimidation"—say, for instance, that it should be "illegal or violent intimidation," or some such words. The Lord Lieutenant might take an exceedingly large view of what the word intimidation meant. In fact, he might sometimes come to the conclusion that landlords in Ireland were intimidated.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the remarks of the hon. Member were not pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee, which was simply to omit the word "wherever."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would conclude his remarks by expressing the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make the concession asked for; because, even if he did so, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would still be able to act as at present—that was to say, to seize any newspapers that contained matter objectionable to him. Practically, the Lord Lieutenant could do that, because he (Mr. Labouchere) took it that the only way open to a person who objected to the seizure would be the bringing of an action against the person who did it. But if the action were brought, the case would go before a jury; and, as the question would be of a political kind, he imagined that the person who brought it would not get the verdict. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, already possessed the powers sought to be given by this clause.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Irish Government had considered this clause very carefully from the point of view
  1694
  put forward by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). They had had experience of the Act of 1870, which, as the hon. Member was aware, contained some extremely stringent clauses. Those clauses, however, had not actually been put into operation, and consequently the Irish Government came to the conclusion that in this matter they would be able to reduce coercion to a minimum. It was not the case, as had been stated by hon. Members opposite, that newspaper publishers had only quoted the extremely objectionable papers published elsewhere. He did not want, in any sense, by these remarks to inflame the character of that discussion, which he was bound to admit, up to the present time, had been extremely practical and sensible. But he must point out that the Irish Government, during the last year or 10 months, had found it necessary constantly to stop single issues of newspapers published both abroad and in England. He would give one instance in which this had taken place. There had been cases in which actual "Boycotting" notices of the strongest sort, and even notices sent by "Captain Moonlight," had been published as advertisements in local newspapers; and the Committee would see that these were cases in which some interference was necessary. Judging not by theory, but by practical experience, the Irish Executive had come to the conclusion that the power contained in this clause was sufficient for the purpose in view; but it would not be sufficient if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea were accepted.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, with reference to the fact that "Boycotting" notices had been published in Irish newspapers, he believed that they had only appeared as advertisements; but it was a characteristic feature of the Government policy that they always wanted two or three ways of doing the same thing. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland said the Irish Executive had reduced the clause to a minimum; but what was that minimum? It was one which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to ruin any newspaper proprietor in Ireland. Disguise it as they might, the Lord Lieutenant could ruin any newspaper proprietor there if he thought fit, and he (Mr. Sexton) challenged contradiction of that statement. Whenever

  1695
  the Government had brought an Irish newspaper before an Irish jury on a criminal charge, they had always succeeded in getting a verdict; and that, he contended, was a great fact in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Swansea. Whenever the Secretary of State for the Home Department had endeavoured to incite a feeling in that House against the Irish Members, he had not attempted to do so by quotations from Irish newspapers. He had never quoted Irish newspapers—he always quoted from The Irish World, or the newspaper edited by O'Donovan Rossa. He had once quoted from United Ireland, but the Government had already exercised against that paper the power asked for in this clause. He (Mr. Sexton) said that if the Government had only supported their proposal by quotations from American newspapers, an unanswerable case had been made out for the Amendment before the Committee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sexton) had stated that he never quoted from Irish newspapers, but only from those published in America, he would give an instance of passages of the kind which the Government thought it their duty to suppress, and he asked the attention of the Committee to a quotation, not from an American, but from an Irish newspaper (The Clare Journal), published on the 13th of April, 1882:—

  "MOONLIGHT PLACARD."
  "Men of Historic Clare and Ireland."
  "This is to give you due and public notice that Pautch Cunningham, Turnpike, Ennis (father doing business for Bannatyne, Cross Road of Mills); this low-bred fellow is giving his cars this long time with impunity to the peelers to attend evictions, etc., in the County of Clare; also to King Clifford Lloyd, of Cromwellian descent, to drive him and his breed of hired assassins throughout the entire county. This Pautch Cunningham is, by all accounts, of rotten lineage, as every one of his breed in the town of Ennis are villains. For instance, 'Curse of Christ' Matty is uncle, and the rest of his gang of bailiffs are blood relations of his. Anybody, no matter whom he may be, in the town of Ennis or elsewhere, after reading or hearing of this public warning, who supplies cars to such parties, I swear by Parnell, Davitt, and Dillon, and the rest of the patriots that are pining in English dungeons, they shall die the death of Bailey, the informer of Dublin. Furthermore, no matter whom he may be that gives his cars for similar purposes in the future the same fate awaits him, if it was in ten years to come, to avenge the principal and grand
  1696
  object in view for the exaltation of the honest and patriotic people of Ireland."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether that appears in a Conservative newspaper?
  SIR, WILLIAM HARCOURT: What does that signify? The notice continues—
  "Also not forgetting the low, hungry robber and degraded blackguard Maurice Quinlian, Cross of Clare Road, who is supplying cars to the enemy since the very start of the agitation, in defiance of the general wishes of the people. This low scoundrel drives himself to every eviction with an air of independence; and his brother Tom gives support to the peelers….. his horses on every occasion that arises for further coercion and persecution of our down-trodden country.&.. With regard to this renegade, some Land Leaguer will die the death of a traitor for entering and supporting his houses. Groves, another smart Orangeman, who has supplied his cars repeatedly, will be similarly dealt with.
  "By Order,—Captain MOONLIGHT."
  "Men of Clare to the rescue."
  "God save Ireland."
  He thought he had now answered the challenge of the hon. Member opposite by reading a passage from an Irish newspaper. It mattered not whether the newspaper were Conservative or Liberal. A newspaper that published such an article as that ought to be suppressed, and Her Majesty's Government were now asking Parliament for the power to seize such a publication. He would give another reference to the same newspaper. When the woman who published it was called upon to give an undertaking to publish nothing of the same or similar character she gave that undertaking, but afterwards withdrew it on the statement that other newspapers in Ireland were doing the same thing. Here was a newspaper inciting to the assassination of men for no other offence than that of supplying cars which they had for hire, because it did not suit the views of "Captain Moonlight" that they should do so. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to arm the Irish Executive with the power of dealing with such publications.
  MR. O'SHEAthought language of the kind quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman could be dealt with under Clause 4 of the Bill. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these words were printed in The Clare Journal. That paper was a Conservative organ of the highest respectability; it was a paper to which

  1697
  he himself, in the ordinary course of business, subscribed, though pressure of affairs prevented his giving it all the attention it deserved. The proclamation was evidently given as an ordinary piece of news. He should be glad to hear from the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether such language, under whatever circumstances it might be published, could not be dealt with under the 4th clause of the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, with regard to the 4th clause of the Bill, it would, in his opinion, be a very insufficient remedy to send the person who published a newspaper to prison for six months, and allow the publication of the newspaper to continue. The object was not only to punish individuals, it was to prevent pestilent and poisonous matter being circulated throughout the length and breadth of Ireland.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, if the legislation for the Press was to be based on such extreme cases in Ireland, he would be glad to know why the same legislation should not be extended to England. A few nights ago, he had quoted in that House passages of a character so abominable that he believed hon. Members were shocked by the reference which he had felt it his duty to make to them. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, it appeared, took no notice of things of this kind published in England. In order to strengthen his case, he had to go to The Clare Journal, and furnish a solitary extract from that paper; and it was upon that he asked the House to destroy the liberty of the Press in Ireland. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not proceed against publications in England which advocated the overthrow of the Queen and the destruction of society at large—that told people there was no use in assassinating a single Monarch, Ruler, or statesman; that they must make a clean sweep of them—sharpen their knives and strengthen their arms, and drive their weapons through the hearts of their foes? This was no invention. It was only a few nights ago that he had the publication to which he referred in his hands, and he had it still in his possession. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not put the law in force against some of the atrocious publications which appeared in this country from day to
  1698
  day? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, upon a single copy of a placard appearing in a Clare newspaper, now came forward to ask the House of Commons to sweep away the liberty of the Press in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the other day, compared this Bill to a fire engine to put out the fire burning in Ireland; but, by a clause of this kind, he would put out, not the fire, but the lamps which gave some glimmer of light in the darkness of that country. The result of this atrocious measure would have the effect of producing silence and darkness in Ireland; and this, it would seem, was the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired to bring about. He had already prevented platforms being brought into requisition, and now he sought to prevent the Press in Ireland speaking to the people, and guiding and instructing them. Every day that passed over their heads they were confronted with the consequences which followed this baneful and oppressive legislation in Ireland; and in the face of those things, the warnings he had received, and the plain results which had followed the attempts to stifle the voice of the people, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came forward with new attempts upon the Press of the country. It was useless to protest in that House against tyranny of that kind; but Irish Members would always denounce it. The people of this country might not pay attention to their denunciations; but the Irish people would, and so would their kindred in America, who were watching the present proceedings attentively, and did not mean to forget them.
  COLONEL NOLANpointed out that the only way in which a Conservative newspaper could be supported in Ireland was by advertisements given by the agents and land-owning families who subscribed to it. In this particular instance, it was really the upper classes who were responsible for the conduct of the newspapers. In legislating for matters of this kind, where a gentle remedy could be used, it was a great mistake to adopt a violent and unusual one. In the case in question, the practical remedy would have been for some of the gentlemen who subscribed to the paper to have remonstrated with the editor, and to have intimated that they would cease to

  1699
  be subscribers; but to say that the whole of the Press of Ireland was to be manacled, because a Conservative paper printed such an extraordinary article, was really going too far. Common sense would tell them at the present moment the attitude the Conservative Party had taken up on the agitation in Ireland. But it did not matter whether these things were published in a Conservative paper or not, no one in authority seemed to raise any objection. It was possible that objectionable articles might be published in other newspapers; but even if they were, it would be a strong measure to take to stop the mouth of the whole of the Press in consequence. In the case of The Dublin Daily Express, when they took into consideration the class of people that supported the paper, it surely was hardly fair for the Secretary of State for the Home Deportment to quote the case against the whole of the Irish Press.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government with regard to a Bill down for consideration, that night—namely, the Settlement and Removal Law Amendment Bill. That was a measure considered by Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House as of very great importance. They had not blocked it, for the simple reason that they did not wish to interfere with the progress of Government Business—they did not want to offer a factious opposition to it. The second reading of the Bill ought not to be taken at an unreasonable hour. [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that he was out of Order in referring to another Bill in Committee upon the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill; therefore he would move to report Progress. It was a strange thing that no one could ever speak on that side of the House without being received with interruptions by the other side. He desired, in the most respectful way, to appeal to the Government to allow Progress now to be reported, in order that the Bill to which he was referring could be brought on—or he wished to receive a pledge from them that the measure would not be taken that night. No one on the Conservative side wished to obstruct the Bill. His own constituents, and, no doubt, the constituents of many other hon. Members, were very deeply interested in the matters dealt with in the Bill;
  1700
  and he would, therefore, pro formâ, move to report Progress, in order that the Government could consider the point he had raised, and, if they thought it desirable, allow the Settlement and Removal Bill to come on. The debate on the present clause of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill appeared to be one which was hardly likely to come to a speedy termination.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government had been making great exertions and great sacrifices, and so, also, it was only fair to say, had the Opposition, in order to make progress with the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Committee to go on with the measure, and to make some further progress with it that night; and he, therefore, sincerely trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would not persist in his Motion to report Progress. The debate on the present Amendment had been very exhaustive, and he thought that a division might very soon be taken upon it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) wished to stop the discussion upon the Amendment before the Committee. All he desired was to elicit a promise from the Government that the other Bill would not be taken that evening.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government never had the remotest intention of proceeding with the second reading of the Settlement and Removal Bill that evening, and why the hon. Member should have thought they had he could not understand. The same question might be asked with regard to any Bill, and it was a most unusual thing to interrupt the progress of one measure in order to ascertain what wa3 likely to be done with another.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he really did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any right to lecture him upon the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might lecture hon. Members on his own

  1701
  side of the House; but that was no reason why he should venture to do the same to hon. Members who sat opposite to him. There was no reason why the Settlement and Removal Bill should not be brought forward that evening. There was no Amendment to it; it was not blocked; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) only feared that it might be the intention of the Government to smuggle it through the House without debate, if possible.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: Are we to understand that the Settlement and Removal Bill will not be taken tonight?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have always understood that when a Member of this House once makes a promise he is not expected to repeat it.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not make a promise in the first instance; but now that he has done so, I beg to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he hoped it was not too late to make an observation upon this matter. Ho was in favour of the Motion to report Progress for, he thought, a much better reason than that advanced by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken—namely, for the reason that the Irish Members, who had taken an active part in advancing Amendments to and in the discussion of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, had made as many sacrifices in the interest of Public Business as the Government or the Conservative Opposition, and to do their duty they would have to be in the House again at 2 o'clock the next day at the Morning Sitting. Under the circumstances, it was surely a reasonable thing that Progress should be reported, seeing that it was now nearly half-past 1. During the time he had been in the House he had always consistently opposed any attempt to continue any discussion on grave public questions at an unreasonably late hour. Well, this was an unreasonably late hour. The clause of th6 Bill they were on was a very important one, and, without any reference at all to the Notice of the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) near him, he trusted that the Motion to report Pro-
  1702
  gress would be adhered to, and that the Government would agree to it. This question as to the liberty of the Press in Ireland was one that could not be disposed of that night. He set the highest value on the concessions the Government had already made in striking out so many sub-sections of the clause. It seemed to him to show a very good spirit on their part, and to that spirit, so far as he was concerned, he would very gladly respond; but, at the same time, he thought they had reached such a late hour on a matter of such importance that it was highly desirable that Progress should be reported.
  MR. RAIKEShoped the Committee would allow the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff; to withdraw his Motion, as it had only been made for the purpose of eliciting some statement from the Government with regard to another Bill. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had made the required statement in a very fair way, and, the purpose of his hon. Friend having been entirely met, he trusted he would now be allowed to withdraw his Motion. So far as he (Mr. Raikes) was concerned, he could not see why this question of the liberty of the Press in Ireland could not be discussed for at least another hour. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House were not anxious to interfere with the progress of this Bill through Committee.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with reference to the observations that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) he (Mr. Trevelyan) had watched the progress of this discussion with the greatest interest, and had noticed that so representative a Member on this question as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) appeared to think that, now the Government Amendments were on the Paper, his principal objections were removed, and that the fears of other hon. Members as to the objectionable character of the clause were removed. The clause, as it stood, simply gave the Lord Lieutenant a power that he had practically been exercising for the past year or 18 months. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could not help thinking that the discussion on the question as to whether that power should be put into this Bill had proceeded, at any rate to a satisfactory length, and he

  1703
  earnestly trusted that the Committee would permit them now to add the clause to the Bill. He must admit that he thought that hitherto the progress which had been made with the Bill had not quite answered to the number of nights which had been spent upon it. If the Government could get this clause they would gladly accede to the wish of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and agree that Progress should be reported.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, ho never yet had seen a Minister of the Crown who had anything to do with the progress of a measure through that House satisfied that the advance of that measure was proportionate to the amount of time devoted to it; and he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be an exception to the general rule. He (Mr. Parnell) agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that they ought not to be called upon to vote away the liberty of the Press in Ireland in a single hour. Though it was true that the Amendments of the right hon, and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did away with a great many of the objections the Irish Members felt to that clause, still this was, no doubt, a section of the Bill which, even in its shortened condition, retaining only the 1st sub-section, gave enormous powers to the Executive in Ireland over the freedom of the Press in that country; in fact, it practically put newspaper editors at the mercy of the Executive authorities. The Lord Lieutenant practically had power now to seize newspapers that he considered objectionable, and there was no way in which newspaper proprietors could prevent the exercise of that power, because it would rest upon a newspaper proprietor to bring an action against the authorities, and everyone must know that it would be impossible for a journalist in Ireland to obtain a verdict from a jury that would be empannelled on such a case, party feeling running so high. As to the other clauses—Clauses 1 and 4—the Government had taken ample, nay, more than ample power to deal penally with editors of newspapers, and they had made out no case why this additional power that they sought should be granted. It was true the Secretary of State for the Home
  1704
  Department had attempted, for the first time on this Bill, to justify the provisions in question—for the first time he had given them an example. Undoubtedly the right hon. and learned Gentleman had selected his example most unfortunately, because he had chosen to refer to something which had appeared in a Conservative paper, a landlord journal, in the County of Clare. In this case, the offence of "Boycotting" was illustrated, and what was the intention with which this Conservative paper had published a "Boycotting" notice? It was to show what a heinous institution the Irish National Land League was when such a notice could be issued apparently in its name. Such was the example the right hon. and learned Gentleman was content to select as a justification for the demand he made for this extra power. He (Mr. Parnell) would challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to select a single passage from any popular newspaper in Ireland upon which charges of this description could be founded. He (Mr. Parnell) knew, as a matter of fact, that no popular newspaper during the whole of last winter dared publish such an extract as that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to. If any popular journal had done so, the editor would have been arrested under the Coercion Act by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and sent to Kilmainham. On the contrary, Irish popular journals during the past six or seven months had been exceedingly careful with regard to the original matter they admitted into their columns, He would call on the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give any passage from United Ireland newspaper—which had been seized in innumerable instances last winter—upon which such a charge as that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made against a Conservative paper could be founded. Why was not the editor of that Conservative journal, from which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read an extract, arrested under the Coercion Act? Simply because the newspaper was Conservative, and because the object of that incitement to assassination by the editor of that journal was for the purpose of running down the Land League and showing up its work. The suggestion he (Mr. Parnell) would make as to this question of Progress would

  1705
  be this. He believed the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment did not intend seriously to press it. In that case, let the Committee go on with the discussion upon the Amendments before them until they came to a point upon which there was a serious difference of opinion. When that serious difference arose then let them report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he quite ad mitted that the principal objection he had to the clause would be removed by the Amendments the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given Notice of. At the same time, he was far from being enamoured of the clause, even as it would stand. It would place the Press in Ireland under the power of the Lord Lieutenant. However, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to feel such a strong objection to the clause now that it was to be amended. [Cries of "No, no!"] At any rate, a great deal of the objectionable character of the clause had been removed; and, seeing that that was the case, he was 'willing to withdraw his Amendment, if it was the pleasure of the Committee that it should be withdrawn. He thought it was desirable that they should come to a decision upon the clause that night.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed to be the impression of the Government that because they had put ballast in their ship, which they could throw out at any moment to suit the winds, therefore hon. Members must agree with them. Surely they could not expect to pass the clause as it stood. They had put things into it, for the purpose of taking them out, and he should like to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a few questions with regard to this power of seizure. Would the Lord Lieutenant order such a paper as The Glasgow Herald to be seized, when sent over to Ireland; Town Talk, Bradlaugh's journal, and immoral journals generally? Would these papers be liable to seizure? There were a number of journals that he, for his own part, should be happy to lay an information against if he thought it would conduce to their seizure. He did not see why an offence against morality should not be as objectionable to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as anything else.
  1706
  Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not maintain that temporal affairs were of more importance than spiritual. A prosecution had been instituted against Town Talk, and most people knew the character of that journal. Would he allow such a publication as that to circulate in Ireland?
  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 33: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that if his Amendment which stands next on the Paper is negatived, a similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) cannot be put, as it contains the same matter substantially. I do not know, therefore, whether the hon. Member intends to proceed with his Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork goes more into detail than that of the hon. Member for Sligo.
  MR. SEXTON: In that case I will withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move an Amendment with the object of providing that where a newspaper was seized, the editor, or other person responsible for the publication, might know what the objectionable matter was, and so might prevent its re-publication in subsequent issues.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 20, at end, to add, "In every case where copies of a newspaper are seized the order directing the seizure shall specify the matter objected to."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no objection to the Lord Lieutenant, in taking so strong a measure as seizing a newspaper, setting forth the reasons in the order of seizure.
  MR. GIBSONthought it necessary that the Committee and the Government should realize what would be the effect of the Amendment if it was accepted. If it was put in the Bill, it had better be worth something; but if the clause was altered, as this Amendment proposed, it would be impossible to work it. The sub-section of the clause only enabled

  1707
  the Executive to seize a particular issue of a newspaper; but if the Lord Lieutenant, before he seized a newspaper which was printed and turned out complete, was to have before him the whole of the printed matter, and introduce it into the warrant, the paper would be circulated throughout the land before the Government stopped it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not understand that the statement of the reasons was to be precedent to a seizure. The seizure would take place, and then, afterwards, the parties affected would have supplied to them, under the clause, a copy of the order of the Lord Lieutenant directing such seizure, and specifying the matter in such newspaper which appeared to the Lord Lieutenant to be calculated to incite to treason or any act of violence. The Lord Lieutenant might make up his mind to seize a newspaper, on the ground of certain passages which it contained; and he (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) conceived it would be sufficient, when the Lord Lieutenant made up his mind, that he should cut out the passages necessary to the seizure, and specify them as the ground of the seizure. The seizure must be due to certain passages. The Amendment provided that—
  "In every case where copies of a newspaper are seized, the order directing the seizure shall specify the matter objected to."
  Therefore, if the Lord Lieutenant had made up his mind to seize a newspaper, he must have made up his mind as to the objectionable passages therein, and must have seen the newspaper. That was the practice at present; the Lord Lieutenant seized the newspaper, and specified the grounds. No doubt, this was an imperfect provision; but it was one which the Irish Government believed to be of practical utility, for they could, under this provision, practically control the Press. That being so, he thought that when the Lord Lieutenant saw a newspaper, he made up his mind as to the passages upon which it should be seized, and ought to give to everybody affected a statement of the passages which had led to the seizure.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would only make this criticism upon what he had said—that part of the Press which
  1708
  he considered it of the first importance to deal with was the Foreign Press—copies of newspapers coming from America, pouring out nothing but the most dangerous matter that could be conceived for a country like Ireland, in its present state. If the Amendment was applied to the whole clause, it would not apply to those terrible publications from America in the same way as to those in Dublin. The Irish Government would be apprised, by telegram or otherwise, that The Irish World, or some other American paper, contained in a particular impression a lot of treasonable matter. If an order could not be issued to seize such a paper, without the passages being quoted, it would be impossible to prevent the circulation of papers which would do the greatest harm. He would suggest that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should consider whether it would not be desirable to put in some words excluding from this Amendment papers brought from abroad.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, an instruction was once given to a reviewer to cut the leaves of a book and then smell the paper knife, and that was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to wish to have done with regard to Irish newspapers, it would suffice for the Lord Lieutenant to smell treason in them without reading them at all. He was really astonished to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman, representing such a centre of enlightenment as Trinity College, Dublin, recommending such a mode of treating the Press. Surely it was not too much to ask that the Lord Lieutenant, before ordering the suppression of a newspaper, should himself see what it contained, and form his own opinion as to the character of the contents. If he concluded that the matter was either treasonable, seditious, or intimidating, it would not take him very long to have the objectionable passages copied; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin required that the Lord Lieutenant should not wait at all, although it would not take him more than three minutes to select from the paper the objectionable passages and put them into the warrant. It was really too bad that even the

  1709
  safeguard given by the Amendment, requiring that the Lord Lieutenant should read the papers himself, and form his own opinion, should, it was suggested, be refused. It was not very much of a safeguard; but even that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the seat of learning in Dublin, where it might be supposed some regard would be had for enlightenment and education, proposed should not be allowed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the Government appeared to be accepting this Amendment rather hastily, and without sufficient consideration; and there was one point he should like to understand. He presumed the object of the Government was to stop the circulation of papers containing mischievous notices throughout the land; and if, in that case, they were compelled to cite the objectionable passages to enable them to suppress the newspapers, would they not be publishing precisely what they wished to suppress? Or was a private communication to be given to the newspapers? If it was to be provided that the paper was to be stopped by the objectionable passages being cited, surely that was giving publicity to the very passages it was desired to suppress. He would suggest to the Government that they should let this matter stand over to the Report, and see in what way they could meet the question, which was, no doubt, worthy of consideration, and with which, he thought, they were acting rather hastily in accepting the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would apply to any publication, because to set out any passages in the newspaper objected to obtained for those very passages publicity. That was the objection to the prosecution of The Freiheit. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to see what the Amendment provided, and how it bore upon the clause. The only power in the clause was—
  "Any copy of such newspaper, appears to the Lord Lieutenant to contain matter inciting to the commission of treason," &c.
  The Lord Lieutenant must, therefore, be cognizant of the newspaper before he could act; and the only question was one of how he was to set out the matter. There was some difficulty in imposing
  1710
  the duty of setting out the whole of the matter before the seizure. He thought the Lord Lieutenant ought to state, some time or other, what it was that had led to the seizure. Therefore, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would agree not to make that statement a condition of the seizure, but that the statement should follow immediately on the seizure, and afterwards be accessible to the parties who were subject to the seizure, he would accept this Amendment, not as a precedent for procedure, but only as a statement of the grounds of the seizure, in order that the people concerned might learn those grounds. If the hon. Gentleman would accept that modification of the Amendment, he thought it would be better to defer the consideration of it. With that view, he would be willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. O'KELLYthought the Government ought to give an assurance that when a Conservative newspaper published any matter, which, if published in a national newspaper, would form a ground of prosecution, the same action should be taken as against the National paper. What had been the case in the last year? Some of the passages quoted in that House as the strongest evidence against liberty of the Press in Ireland were published in a Conservative paper in Ireland. In this matter there ought to be something like even-handed justice, and the Government ought, at least, to give an assurance that they would act in the same way in regard to a Conservative paper as to a National paper.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, whenever he had seen any of these passages in a Conservative paper, they had been accompanied by editorial condemnations. That was a very different thing from publishing those passages with expressions of approval, as was often done.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to say that he could not accept the suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because one of his objects was to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should have seen a newspaper before he ordered its seizure, and examined the objectionable passages. He wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee that the reason put forward by the Front Opposition Bench to induce the

  1711
  right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a change in the Amendment was that it might be inconvenient for the Government in dealing with foreign newspapers, which might get into the country and be circulated, if they had no opportunity of seeing and seizing them. He thought it so desirable that proper precautions should be taken with regard to Irish newspapers—that was to say, that there should be no risk in their case—that he would suggest that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired, on Report, to introduce some special provision to meet the case raised with regard to foreign newspapers, that would be very fair. But he did think that it would be desirable to require that the Lord Lieutenant should have seen a newspaper before seizing it. There was no practical inconvenience in this course, because the newspaper could not be circulated through Dublin without the Lord Lieutenant having an ample opportunity of seeing it. With regard to country newspapers, their circulation was very limited; but the Lord Lieutenant would be able to get information by telegram as to any contents which might be objectionable. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would allow the Amendment to pass as it was; and then, before Report, they might consider what modification should be introduced to meet the objection as to foreign papers. After the Government had admitted the principle of the Amendment, he thought it was only fair that they should introduce the sub-section into the Bill; and then, on Report, it would be permissible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to propose any modification.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, ho had listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) with great interest, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was evidently going through the same process as he (Mr. Trevelyan) himself had gone through some weeks ago upon a question with regard to which he had made some particular inquiries. When he first went to Dublin, he did not understand the process by which a single issue of a newspaper enabled the Government to obtain such a hold over the more dangerous ebullitions from the Press; but when he saw how the work was
  1712
  done he understood it quite well; and, in regard to newspapers in Ireland, he was perfectly satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might be adopted with perfect security. The form of the seizure order would run in this way—"Whereas a newspaper, entitled so-and-so, and dated so-and-so, appears to us to contain, in a passage therein, commencing with the word so-and-so, and ending with the word so-and-so, matter inciting to violence or intimidation. Now, we hereby order all copies of the said newspaper to be seized, and we authorize you to seize the same accordingly." It was quite obvious that that was as short an order as could be given to an Executive officer. With regard to newspapers published abroad, he realized the difficulty referred to; but as the Government recognized the principle of the Amendment with regard to Irish newspapers, and as they had engaged to deal with the difficulty raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as to papers published abroad, he thought the principle might be embodied in the clause now, and any modification left for Report.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, after what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) had said, he hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would postpone his Amendment until Report. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be taken as bearing upon home newspapers, and, by Report, they would have an opportunity of considering what form would be required to deal with foreign newspapers.
  MR. PARNELLunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to adopt substantially the provision contained in his (Mr. Parnell's) sub-section with regard to home newspapers, reserving to himself the right to bring up, on Report, a special provision with regard to foreign newspapers. Upon that understanding, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would like to move, pro formâ, an Amendment, providing that in case of seizure the person who executed the seizure should

  1713
  take with him a copy of the order authorizing the seizure. He could understand it would be, perhaps, inconvenient to present the order in cases where papers were seized from street vendors; but he thought that, in the case of tradesmen who sold papers over their counters, the constables making the seizure should be required to show that they had legal authority.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the hon. Gentleman to let the proposed Amendment stand over until Report. It was very proper that the person interested ought to be furnished with information as to the ground on which the seizure had been made; but what limitations should be put upon that required some consideration. In principle, the ground on which the seizure was made ought to be accessible; but he would like time to consider how the thing should be carried out.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would defer the matter for Report, and he would also defer until Report the introduction of a third sub-section he had to propose to the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would now move the Amendment which stood in his name, which practically amounted to the omission of Subsections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, from the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "Where," in line 21, page 5, to the word "unincorporated' in line 9, page 6.—[Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, of course, the omission of these sub-sections very materially weakened the power of the Government to deal with the Press. The clause, as originally framed, gave the Lord Lieutenant, in the first instance, power to seize and stop any particular newspaper; and subsequently, if he had reason to believe that the paper was altogether objectionable, he had power to deal with the paper by way of forfeiture. The Government now thought it unnecessary to proceed with the latter part of the clause. So far as papers published in Ireland were concerned, he (Sir Stafford
  1714
  Northcote) had no wish to say anything to challenge their discretion in the matter; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider whether the same measure ought to be applied to foreign newspapers as he proposed to apply to Irish newspapers. He thought that in the event of its appearing that some particular newspaper, published abroad, and regularly forwarded to this country and to Ireland, was incorrigibly bad, and was continually publishing mischievous and dangerous matter, it was worthy of consideration whether power should not be reserved to the Government to stop the circulation of that paper in England or in Ireland? He did not ask for an answer at that moment; but he thought the question was one which deserved consideration, and which, perhaps, the Government would consider before the Report of the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had been very carefully considered. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would observe that the sections it was proposed to omit never could have applied to foreign newspapers. He (Sir William Harcourt) would like to say, in a few words, why the Government abandoned these sections. When the Government proposed to have caution-money, they had great difficulty in knowing what to do with the recognizances when they were forfeited. The ordinary way of dealing with recognizances would have been to refer them to a jury; but he had already said that that would be of no avail. What were they to do upon the question of determining whether a paper, having given caution-money, had not forfeited its recognizances? The Government felt that there was a very great difficulty in referring Press questions to the Judges; and in considering whether the determination of the question should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, they felt very strongly the objections which were urged to the making of the Lord Lieutenant the Judge upon the forfeiture of recognizances. These were the grounds which induced the Government to abandon these sections, coupled with the fact that the Irish Government had found the power which they were prac-

  1715
  tically exercising at present was sufficient to deal with the matter.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department need not have apologized for the omission of these sections. The Irish Members only wished he would go a little further and strike out the whole clause.
  Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 26: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Motion was put he would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Committee had now waited more than a week, and they had not yet seen the clauses which the Government proposed to bring up with relation to combinations and associations.
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had put the clauses on the Paper that night. Hon. Gentlemen would see them to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.— [BILL 161.]
(Mr. Gorst, Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Beresford Hope, Viscount Folkestone.')
COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.— [BILL 161.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Printed notice restraining public performance).
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that before the clause was passed ho would
  1716
  move the addition of the words "of every edition and every published copy" after the word "cover," in line 13.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, to add, after the word "cover," the words "of every edition and of every published copy."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
  Amendment agreed to; words added.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Action for penalties under 3 and 4 W. 4, c. 15, to be dismissed in certain cases).
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "incumbent upon the proprietor of such copyright," and insert "necessary." The noble Viscount said, it did not appear to be generally understood that the owner of the copyright and the owner of the performing right were two distinct persons. If the word "necessary" were inserted, the clause would not point at the wrong person, as it did at present.
  Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 21, to insert after "Act"—
  "Or that, in the case of musical compositions printed before the passing of this Act, and in which such right of public representation or performance and such copyright are not vested in the same person, and notice to the like effect has within six months after the passing of this Act been given by the person in whom such right of public representation or performance is vested to the person in whom for the time being such copyright is Tested."
  The noble Viscount said the object of the Amendment was that people who wished to sing a song, and who did not know in whom the right of public performance was vested, should have a ready means of ascertaining the fact. I At present there were no means of ascertaining the fact; but under this Amendment it would be necessary that the person in whom the copyright was vested should keep a list in his shop, or place of business, of the names of those in whom the right of public performance was vested.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 21, after "Act," insert "or that, in the case of musical compositions printed before the passing of this Act, and in which such right of public representation or performance and such copyright are not vested in the same person, a notice to the like effect has within six months after the passing of this Act been given by the person in whom such right of public representation or performance is vested to the person in whom for the time being such copyright is vested."—[Viscount Folkestone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WHITLEYdoubted whether the Amendment would really carry out the intention of the noble Viscount. It was proposed that notice should be given by the person in whom the right of public representation or performance was vested to the person in whom the copyright was vested.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that that was not the person performing.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, assuming that a person had not given that notice at all, and brought an action for penalties—
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, it was only in regard to the performing right that they would wish that an action for penalties should be brought.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment carried out the object of the noble Viscount. The owners of the performing right in some cases were not the owners of the copyright, and a person who sang a song, if he wished to retain the performing right, would give notice to the person who owned the copyright. A person, therefore, to find out if a certain song could be sung, would have to go to the owner of the copyright for information. That was the law, whether it was a protected song or not.
  Question put, and agreed, to; words inserted.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords]— [BILL 203.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said,
  1718
  he did not propose to offer any opposition to the second reading, and he only reserved to himself the right in Committee to move the omission of a couple of lines, so that the Act would allow anybody to appear to represent himself.

  HIGHWAY RATE AND EXPENDITURE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to extend certain provisions of "The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869," to the Highway Rate; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON and Mr. HIBIERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 209.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.