HC Deb 19 June 1882 vol 270 cc1615-95

Clause 9 (Arrest of strangers found under suspicious circumstances).

DR. COMMINS

said, 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. COMMINS

said, 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- 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 HARCOURT

said, 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 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. SULLIVAN

said, 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— 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, 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. SYNAN

asked 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. HEALY

said, 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. 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. LOWTHER

thought 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 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. SEXTON

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, the clause would apply to both strangers and aliens.

MR. SEXTON

asked 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 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. CALLAN

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

wished 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. CALLAN

said, 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 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 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. MARUM

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. COMMINS

regretted that the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- 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 CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member must not discuss the whole clause upon this Amendment.

DR. COMMINS

said, 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. WARTON

suggested 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 HARCOURT

thought 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. HOPWOOD

said, 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. CALLAN

said, 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- 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. COMMINS

thought the difficulty would be obviated by inserting the word "thereto" after "stranger," having reference to the proclaimed district.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the effect of that alteration would be too large. A proclaimed district might mean a whole county.

MR. CALLAN

said, 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 a bail-bond by the Resident Magistrate.

MR. GIVAN

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 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'SULLIVAN

said, 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. SULLIVAN

thought 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 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. HEALY

asked 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 CHAIRMAN

called the hon. Member to Order.

MR. SEXTON

supposed 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 HARCOURT

was 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'KELLY

said, 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. POWER

suggested 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. COMMINS

said, 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 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. 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. MARUM

pointed 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 CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment under 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. HEALY

asked whether it would not save a great deal of time simply to provide that a stranger should be conducted across the frontier?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Gentleman must speak to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. HEALY

said, 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. COMMINS

said, 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. SEXTON

thought 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. HEALY

said, 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 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," 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. HEALY

said, 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. COMMINS

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and learned Member must not discuss an Amendment that was not before the Committee. The word "thereto" was now under discussion.

DR. COMMINS

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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'KELLY

said, 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 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. GIVAN

considered 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 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'KELLY

said, 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'CONNOR

did 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. BIGGAR

thought 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. LABOUCHERE

hoped 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 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'LAREN

thought 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. DILLWYN

said, 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. GILL

thought 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- 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. WILLIS

pointed 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'COAN

said, 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 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. GIVAN

said, 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. LEAMY

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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. 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'COAN

said, 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- 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'KELLY

said, 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'CONNOR

said, 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, 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. HEALY

took 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. TREVELYAN

said, 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'CONNOR

thought 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. BIGGAR

said, 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. HEALY

wished 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. DILLON

said, 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- 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. BIGGAR

did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, and, therefore, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 power to be conferred under the clause, the Amendment must certainly be pressed further.

MR. DILLON

said, 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 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. MARUM

said 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. GIVAN

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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 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 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. HEALY

said, 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 a strange law. The law was the same as that which was in existence in England.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. WARTON

said, 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 should be "the justice" or "the justices."

MR. HEALY

said, that difficulty could be got over by saying "the said justice or justices."

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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- 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. HEALY

said, he would accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion, and leave out the latter part of the sub-section. Probably he would bring it up again on Report.

Amendment agreed to; Sub-section, as amended, inserted accordingly.

MR. PARNELL

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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 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. HEALY

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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'COAN

said, 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 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. SULLIVAN

considered 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 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'CARTHY

said, 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. MACFARLANE

thought 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, 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. ELLIOT

said, the question was not as to introducing passports, but as to what evidence would be necessary for a man taken before a magistrate.

MR. PARNELL

said, 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- 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. SYNAN

said, 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. DILLON

explained 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 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'DONNELL

said, 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. COMMINS

said, 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- 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 HARCOURT

said, 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 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. PARNELL

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. HEALY

remarked 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. COMMINS

said, 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 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 HARCOURT

thought 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. PARNELL

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had 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. GIBSON

said, 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'DONNELL

said 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 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. SEXTON

hoped 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- tary of State for the Home Department citing the recent assassinations as an argument in favour of this clause.

MR. METGE

said, 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. METGE

thought 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. TREVELYAN

said, 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 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'DONNELL

said, 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. DILLON

said, that before the Question was put, he wished to make a 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 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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- 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. COMMINS

said, 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 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.
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. DILLWYN

moved, 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 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 HARCOURT

said, 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- 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. DILLWYN

said, 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 HARCOURT

said, 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'CONNOR

observed, 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 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 COWEN

said, 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, 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. NEWDEGATE

said, 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. LABOUCHERE

said, 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 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 CHAIRMAN

said, the remarks of the hon. Member were not pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee, which was simply to omit the word "wherever."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, 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. TREVELYAN

said, the Irish Government had considered this clause very carefully from the point of view 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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 HARCOURT

said, 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:—