Commons Sitting of 20 June 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—
Report — Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)*[160].
Committee —Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157] —R.P. [Fifteenth Night.]
Committee—Report—Vagrancy (re-comm.) [199],
Considered as amended —Third Reading —Copyright (Musical Compositions)*[161], and passed.

PETITION.

  PARLIAMENT—PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL—DUBLIN PETITION.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. DAWSON),who was clothed in his robes of office, said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a Petition from the Corporation of Dublin against the Bill now passing through this House for the prevention of crime in Ireland. The Corporation of Dublin represent the mercantile, commercial, and trading classes of Ireland, who have a deep anxiety for the peace, the prosperity, and contentment of that country. They are fully convinced, as this Petition

  1749
  states, that the present state of Ireland results from the imposition and action of unjust laws, and they are of opinion that the present measure will not tend to lull or pacify their anxiety, but rather to increase the disturbed condition of Ireland. They view with extreme apprehension the abolition of trial by jury, a step fraught with danger, and one which has been condemned by the highest jurists and statesmen in England, and has been also condemned by the majority of the Judicial Bench in Ireland. ["Order!"] They fear that by this temporary exercise of a—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is entitled to read the prayer of the Petition, but is not entitled to debate the Petition nor the subject of it.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. DAWSON): The Petitioners state that they pointed out to this honourable House on previous occasions the abortiveness of coercive measures in Ireland — ["Order!"] — and the result has proved that —["Order, order!"] — I will read the prayer of the Petition:—
  "That we, the Municipal Council, principally composed of merchants and traders and representatives of the mercantile community"—
  [Renewed cries of" Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the right hon. Member to be reading the prayer of the Petition, and in so doing he is quite in Order.
  MR. SEXTON: On the point of Order I would ask if the right hon. Member is not entitled to summarize the heads of the Petition as well as to read its prayer? [Cries of" Read!"]
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. DAWSON): I will read the prayer—
  "Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your honourable House not to pass the Prevention of Grime Bill, or so to modify it as to leave untouched Constitutional liberty whilst only dealing with the repression of crime. We further pray your honourable House at once to enact such legislation as will stay the fearful sufferings now entailed by the numerous evictions that are daily taking place, and so to amend the Land Act as to prevent the recurrence of those evictions. We also pray your honourable House speedily to take into your earnest consideration the advisability, as well in the interest of the Empire as of Ireland, of the restoration to Ireland of her legislative independence."

QUESTION'S.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 —RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. P. O'Connor, of Miltown Malbay, has been transferred from Limerick Gaol to Kilmainham, 130 miles further away from his home; whether, since this man is over sixty years of age, the Government will reconsider his case; and, whether, as all the suspects from Hook, County Wexford, have been released except Mr. Nicholas Walsh, of Taghmon, who is still confined in Kilkenny Gaol, the Government will include him in the general liberation of Wexford men?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has had the cases of Messrs. O'Connor and Walsh under his consideration, and found that he could now order their release. The orders were accordingly issued yesterday.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Patrick Gallogly, Patrick Beirne, and John Sheridan, who were confined in Monaghan Prison on suspicion of breaking into houses by night and assaulting persons therein, have recently been discharged from custody by order of the Lord Lieutenant; whether any communication has been made on the subject to the persons assaulted by them; and, whether it is intended to put them on their trial for the offence with which they were charged?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the persons named in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member were released at the beginning of the present month. So far as I am aware, no communication has been made to the persons assaulted. I am not aware that it is intended now to prosecute them for the offence of which they were reasonably suspected. They had been in detention for upwards of 14 weeks, and even if they had been convicted of the assault under the ordinary law, they might very probably have escaped with a lighter sentence.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 — PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, in consequence of the extra duty thrown upon prison warders by the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, trustworthy men had to be drafted from the different prisons where they were permanently settled to the places where the political prisoners were confined; whether these warders were in many instances separated from their families; whether the sum granted to them for lodging, fuel, and light (if married) when so transferred was only ten shillings per month; whether the Government are aware that these men were frequently obliged to spend fully three times this amount for lodging, &c.; whether in Dublin their hours of duty were such that they have had to remain on twenty-six and a half hours out of thirty-six; whether similar excessive duty had to be performed in other gaols where suspects were confined; whether the extra warders employed by the Government were old police pensioners, many of whom were past work before leaving the police force, and were entirely ignorant of prison discipline; whether, therefore, duties of much greater weight and responsibility devolved upon the regular warders than before; whether the police who are getting an extra grant were also relieved by auxiliaries from the Army and Army Reserve; and, whether, taking all the circumstances of the case of the prison warders into consideration, the Government can see their way to make an allowance for their increased duty and responsibility during the past eighteen months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member asks me 10 Questions, the answers to which would take up a considerable time, and I trust he will be satisfied when I tell him that as soon as all the persons detained under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act have been released, it will be the duty of the Prisons Board to submit the names of certain prison officers to Government for some reward for extra duties. As, however, this is a matter which cannot be arranged without the consent of the Treasury, and as the case is not yet in a position to be submitted to their Lord-
  1752
  ships, I wish to avoid raising hopes that may not afterwards be capable of fulfilment.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that in proportion to their number and the work they have done they shall receive rewards comparatively as great as those granted to the police?
  MR. TREYELYAN: The answer to that cannot, of course, be made by any Department without the consent of the Treasury.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  BARON DE FERRIERESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he cannot give some facilities for considering the Police Superannuation Bill, for being opposed it runs the risk of never coming before the House, owing to the half-past Twelve o'clock Rule and the existing press of business, and thus the legitimate expectations of a most deserving body of men appear likely to be again indefinitely postponed?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he could assure the hon. Member that he regretted very much that the legitimate expectations of a most do-serving body of men appeared likely to be indefinitely postponed. But the hon. Member must undertake the task of inducing the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) and the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) to relent. If he succeeded in that difficult task, then they might hope to make some progress with the Bill.

  STATE OF IRELAND—INTIMIDATION.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the burning of a labourer's house near Mallow, reported in the "Cork Constitution" as follows: —
  "There are circumstances attending upon the burning of the labourer Looney's house near Mallow, on Friday last, as reported in our columns of Saturday, which present features of incredible barbarity. It appears that this poor family, having barely escaped being burned to death in their humble homo, were first compelled to watch helplessly while the little they possessed was being consumed in the flames, no one coming to their aid, and many hours after were found by the magistrate crouching by the side of the public road half naked and without

  1753
  food, because, being under the ban of "boycotting," nobody was courageous enough to afford even the infant of a month old, who formed one of the miserable party, any succour;"
  and, whether the above facts are true; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to lessen the state of intimidations apparently prevalent in the district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have had a report on this case from the Sub-Inspector of Constabulary, who was present on the spot the morning of the occurrence. As usual in such cases, the newspaper account is somewhat exaggerated. The poor people had their clothing on, and were able to save some few articles of furniture. The youngest of the children is 10 months old, not one month, as stated. They received assistance from one of the neighbours only, and the Sub-Inspector sent them some bread from the Constabulary barrack. They are now under shelter in a place called "Dan's Castle," in the vicinity, and pending the erection of a police hut near the scene, a party of police have been quartered in the castle, which is the only available house in the vicinity.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE SPECIAL, AND RESIDENT MAGISTRATES, AND THE POLICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In what form had the constabulary and special and resident magistrates been induced to give their opinions on evictions; had any data been given them as to how they were to discriminate between ejectments which were not to be censured and those which they should describe as cases of hardship; were they to have any regard to the necessities of the landlord and his family; and, were the duties of censorship, as to the character of legal process, to be applied to all the creditors of the tenant, or to be confined to the landlord only?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in the detailed report of evictions sent in by the constable or Sub-Inspector of the district, a statement is called for which is described as follows in the printed form: —
  "This statement is to comprise information as to the circumstances of the case, the cause of evictions, whether they produced much hardship or excitement in the neighbourhood."
  Those are the instructions which are
  1754
  given. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the instructions were always held to relate to the evicting person, whether landlord or creditor. The late Mr. Burke altered the form, with a view of obtaining fuller particulars, about a year ago. I will give a specimen of two of the answers without the names—
  "The case of A B is one of hardship, as ha was highly-rented, had indifferent land, and a large family. That of C D was not a case of hardship, as he could have paid his rent, and was comfortably off."
  Then, again—
  "There was no hardship in this case. E F is a carpenter, and well able to pay his rent if so disposed; but ho wanted to get away with it, as he expects to get money from the Land League for allowing himself to be evicted. He has a new house, built for himself, where he intends to live."
  And, again —
  "G H, wife, and eight children were evicted for non-payment of rent. The eviction was not a ease of hardship, as the rents were reasonable, and being admitted as caretaker, he had six months to redeem."
  And, again—
  "Tenants had nowhere to go. These men were paying very high rent; nearly double valuation. These people were in a miserable state of poverty."
  The Special Resident Magistrates send in periodical reports of the nature of the evictions in their districts. Frequent Ministerial statements have been made in Parliament as to the contumacious refusal to pay rent among the tenants of Ireland. These statements would have been based on the reports to which I have referred, and I never have heard that their general accuracy or authority was disputed when used for this purpose. I hope I may take this opportunity to say a word of explanation. Having observed much criticism on the epithet "cruel," which I used the other day, I may say that I did not apply the epithet to the conduct of any landlord towards his tenant. What I did say was that those particular landlords who were carrying out evictions which were reported to the Government as cases of hardship were behaving in a cruel manner towards the Executive Government, which was trying to do its best under great difficulties. As often happens on a Wednesday, the newspaper report was much condensed, and so the mistake arose.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what machinery the authorities have invented for testing the value of the land, and the ascertaining whether it is over-rented?
  MR. TREVELYAN: They have the valuation, the rent, and the number of years' rent due. The authorities have the same means of getting information on this subject that they have of getting materials for any Report on the peace and order or position of the district.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had explained his meaning to be that the conduct of certain landlords towards the Executive Government was cruel. Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not those landlords were compelled to evict their tenants in order to obtain money wherewith to support their families; and, whether, if they ceased from evictions, the Government would enable them to support their families?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I referred only to landlords who, being in the same position as the hon. Member for Carrick-fergus (Mr. Greer), did not take the same course as that Gentleman — the course, namely, of waiting for the Arrears Bill instead of proceeding with evictions.
  MR. GIBSON: That was not my Question. Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that he has not made a charge of cruelty against landlords who are unable to support their families if they do not get their rents?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was only to those in the position of the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer), and who did not follow his example, that I referred. That there are such landlords the Government are absolutely informed, but I do not say they are many. I hope and believe they are few.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask if landlords are not as well able to work for their living as any other people?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether a summary of the evictions could not be presented to the House, showing how many, in the opinion of the constable, were cases in which the tenants could not pay their rents, and how many were cases in which they were able, but wilfully refused to do so?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; I cannot undertake to place such Returns upon
  1756
  the Table of the House. Those Returns are given in great detail for the purpose of enabling the Government to form their judgment on peace and order in Ireland, and the Government draw from them the conclusions they think ought to be drawn, in whatever direction those conclusions point.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House what instructions have been given to the Constabulary with respect to the manner in which the means of the landlords are to be ascertained by them?
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked whether it was not a fact that the landlords had lately evicted their tenants for the payment of half-a-year's rent in arrear only?
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION —RATIFICATION.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When it is proposed to ratify the Convention of 6th May relative to the North Sea Fisheries?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to ratify the Convention as soon as the other Powers, parties to it, are ready to do so. It is not yet certain when it will be ratified by France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and I cannot, therefore, at present name any certain date.

  LAW AND POLICE—CASE OF CHARLES FROST, WRONGFULLY CONVICTED.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of a man named Charles Frost, who was charged at the Mansion House with having attempted to destroy himself; and if it is true, as stated by the man, that he was tried three years ago and sentenced to fifteen years penal servitude upon the perjured, evidence of a police officer, and after serving two years was released, his innocence having been proved; and, if the man's statement is well founded, whether it is his intention to grant him any compensation for the injury done him by such miscarriage of justice?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, this is one of those unfortunate cases that do sometimes occur of mistaken

  1757
  identity. On careful investigation the man was found to have been wrongfully convicted. He was pardoned, and I took every pains to see that he should get good employment afterwards, which he did get. As to what has happened since, I am not particularly informed; but I have ordered further inquiries into the matter, in order that what can be done may be done.
  MR. MACFARLANEinquired whether, in accordance with precedent, some compensation could not be made to the man?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot answer that Question, but I will order further inquiries to be made.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— MICHAEL M'SWEENEY AND JOHN RYAN.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Michael M'Sweeney and John Ryan, who were released during the month of May, had been imprisoned under reasonable suspicion of having committed murder?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Baronet is quite correct in this matter. In answering the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on the 8th of June, to the effect that John Ryan was guilty of inciting to murder, and not murder, I was quoting from a report from Dublin, in which a mistake had been made on this point. The existence of that mistake was not brought to my notice until I inquired about it this morning. With regard to Michael M'Sweeney, he was released on the 7th of June. That was the day on which the report was sent me from Dublin, and I can only suppose that the release was not yet known to the Department which forwarded it. I have given directions that in any case where a mistake has been made in information on which I have grounded an answer in Parliament, the matter may be brought to my notice at once.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— RESIDENCES OF RELEASED PRISONERS.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  1758
  tenant of Ireland, Whether he can give any information as to the present residences of those persons who have been released from prison within the last two years who were imprisoned on suspicion of having committed murder, or having been accessory to it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, if the hon. Member will specify any individual cases upon which he requires this information, I shall have no objection to endeavour to supply it to him; but I cannot give him the general information off-hand.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS—THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR. H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can state what steps were taken by Sir Beau-champ Seymour, and Her Majesty's ships under his command, last Sunday, the 11th of May, for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourish the belief that the repetition of such steps will be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of disturbances?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the hon. Member yesterday addressed this identical Question to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I have nothing to add to the answer then given by my hon. Friend.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs yesterday did not give me a satisfactory answer. I shall continue asking this Question until I do get one.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—DEATH FROM EXPOSURE AT AN EVICTION AT RHODE, KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secre- to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. Gowing, coroner, attended at Rhode, King's County, on Wednesday last, to open an inquest on the body of a child, aged twelve months, who died from exposure consequent upon an eviction and the refusal of the resident magistrate to allow the shelter huts to be erected which had been provided; if the child, at the time of the eviction, was lying ill of the measles, and in a dangerous state; whether Sub-Inspector Caulfield neglected to summon a jury, although he had received the coroner's precept eighteen hours before the time

  1759
  for holding the inquest; and whether, at the opening of the inquest, the police offered no explanation to the coroner, but merely stated in reply that, although the precept had been received, no jury had been summoned; what steps the Government propose to take in the matter; and, whether the family of the dead child, and the other families of the evicted, are not at liberty to take advantage of the shelter huts, the use of which has been denied to them by the resident magistrate?
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police, at Rhode, King's County, recently pro-vented by threats the erection of a hut, provided by the Ladies' Land League, to shelter the family of an evicted labourer named Kavanagh; whether, in consequence of the conduct of the police, Kavanagh, his wife, and his children, who, as notified to the police, were ill of measles, had to avail themselves of the shelter of a shed or stable without door, window, or chimney, and have lived there for the last fortnight; whether the result has been that exposure has caused the death of one of the children, and that another is now lying at the point of death; whether the coroner of Queen's County, in accordance with the Law, issued his precept to the police directing them to provide a jury to inquire into the death of the child, and giving them twenty-eight hours' notice for the purpose; whether the police disregarded the precept, and failed to provide the jury, in consequence of which no inquest has yet been held; and, whether the Executive will take notice of the conduct of the police, and institute further action in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as these two Questions relate to the same matter, I shall answer them both together. I am informed that the facts of the case are as follows:—The Coroner did attend at Rhode, in the King's County, on the 14th instant, to open an inquest on the body of a child of a labourer named Kavanagh, who has been employed on the farm of a Mr. Kerr. He, with other labourers, had demanded higher wages, and, being refused, struck work, and had been ordered by the magistrates in Petty Sessions to give up his house and garden. There was no eviction in the case. Kavanagh's child was at the time suffer-
  1760
  ing from measles, and Mr. Kerr told him he might remain in the house if he produced a medical certificate to the effect that moving the child would be injurious. Kavanagh, however, gave up possession at once and got shelter in an unoccupied house, which I am informed a very little trouble would have rendered quite habitable. The child having died, the Coroner, by letter of the 12th instant, sent the Sub-Inspector a precept to hold an inquest on the 14th, and the Sub-Inspector telegraphed on the 13th to have the Coroner informed that an inquest was unnecessary, as the child had died from natural causes. Nevertheless, the Coroner attended on the 14th, when the Sub-Inspector handed him a notice explaining that the time had not been sufficient to enable him to collect a jury, there being few eligible persons residing in the locality. The Sub-Inspector asked for a fresh precept, giving sufficient time to summon a jury; but the Coroner stated he would not issue one, but would leave the matter in the hands of the Government. No communication has, however, been since received from him by Government. The erection of the huts for these labourers had been prevented by the magistrate, as information had been given that they were to be erected for purposes of intimidation and for the encouragement of the labourers' strike. Huts are allowed to be erected now under the circumstances which I stated on Friday. The doctor who attended Kavanagh's child states that it died from natural causes; another of his children is now ill. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this report; but I have directed further inquiry to be made as to the alleged neglect of the Sub-Inspector.

  IRELAND—ADVANCES TO IRISH LANDLORDS ON IRISH ESTATES.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, seeing that many Insurance Companies, and persons who have lent money on Irish estates, or have bought up charges on same, insist on payment of their interest, and threaten foreclosure if the landlords of such estates do not take all legal steps to put themselves in position to pay such charges, the Treasury will, in such cases, where the tenants have not paid their rents, make advances to these landlords to enable them to pay

  1761
  such charges if they stay for the present further evictions?
  MR. COURTNEY: No, Sir; it is not intended to make such advances.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAY RATES—DRAFT REPORT.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways, If he can account for the publication by the daily newspapers of the Draft Reports submitted to that Committee, before they have been finally decided on?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir; I cannot account for the circumstance. All that I have been able to ascertain is that the first publication of the Draft Report was in the Dublin Free-mail's Journal. I think, however, that, with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to say that if that publication has occurred through the instrumentality of any Member of the Committee, I cannot understand how any Gentleman could consider it consistent with his duty to the House to treat a Paper marked "strictly private and confidential" as one which should be laid before the public.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Edward Malet had been instructed to take any and what steps to exact punishment and reparation for the murder of the British subjects killed in Alexandria during the riot of the 11th instant; whether any provision, beyond the stationing of a gunboat at either end of the channel, has been made, or is contemplated, for the protection of the Suez Canal; whether Sir E. Malet has been any party to the arrangement under which Ragheb Pasha has formed a new Egyptian Ministry in which Arabi Pasha remains Minister of War; and, whether, in view of the recent Anglo-French Note, demanding the removal of Arabi from office and his exile from Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will recognise any ministry of which he still forms a part?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that before that Question was answered it might be convenient that he should ask the Prime Minister a Question on this subject, of
  1762
  which he had given him private Notice. That Question was, Whether Her Majesty's Government still adhered to the policy which they had announced, that no settlement of the Egyptian Question could be entertained or sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government which did not require the dismissal of Arabi Pasha from any position of trust or power in Egypt; and, whether that declaration had been laid down as one of the bases of the approaching Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir Edward Malet was informed on the 17th instant that Her Majesty's Government abstained from making demands for the present; but that he was to let it be clearly understood that they would require full reparation and satisfaction for the outrages committed during the recent disturbances. The Government have already declined in both Houses to make a detailed statement as to the safety of the Suez Canal; but they attach the highest possible importance to the immense interest of England in connection with it. Sir Edward Malet has not been a party to the formation of the new Egyptian Ministry; and Her Majesty's Government have in no way receded from their declaration on the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that perhaps now the Prime Minister would answer the Question he had put to him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am bound to say that this is rather a strong example of the inconvenience of putting Questions relating to matters of the utmost delicacy without due Notice. ["Oh!"] I think I have a right to express that opinion, although hon. Members opposite think it necessary to interrupt me. The so-called "private Notice" which I received was a note placed in my hands as I entered the House. Undoubtedly, a part of it does join on and dovetail with the answer just given by my hon. Friend, in which he stated that Her Majesty's Government had nothing to retract from what they had heretofore said on the Egyptian Question. But alongside the question of the ultimate political settlement of Egypt there has come up another question, which for the moment is the dominant question, and that is the safety of European life and property in Egypt. That cannot be considered except with reference to the hands in which the power is temporarily placed. That

  1763
  question and the interests connected with it would render it highly improper in mo to give any answer to the Question now addressed to me. With regard to the Conference, I can give a little more particularity to the answer I gave yesterday, because reference has been made, in the Correspondence now going on, to the particular despatch as containing what we are quite ready to admit are the bases of the Conference. That is a despatch dated the 6th of February, and it is included in the Papers already in the hands of Members.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sultan has concurred with the holding of a Conference upon the affairs of Egypt; and, whether he can state where and when this Conference will be held, and what Powers will be represented?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, as the result of the exchange of views which has lately taken place among the Powers, the Great Powers have agreed, upon the initiative of England and France, that there is ground for deliberation in common on the present state of Egypt, and on the measures which it may entail; and Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic have proposed that the Representatives of the six Great Powers shall meet in Conference at Constantinople on Thursday next.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOTsaid, that the latter part of the Question had not been satisfactorily answered.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can only state that the present information that the Government have is that the Conference is to meet without the concurrence of Turkey; but the hon. Member will see, when he comes to read the Correspondence, that it is not easy to answer accurately Questions on this subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has the Sultan declined to take part in the Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: All I can say is that there is an actual conflict of words on the fact.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, on the 25th of September 1881, Sir E. Malet wrote to Lord Granville in the following terms:—
  "During the late crisis there was a considerable panic in the large Foreign population at Alexandria and Cairo, arising not so much from
  1764
  the expectation that the movement would turn against Foreigners, as from the sense of helplessness on their part if it did.
  "In connection with this point, I would venture to recommend that one of Her Majesty's ships of war should he stationed at Alexandria during the winter;"
  whether, on the 24th of October 1881, after the withdrawal of the "Invincible," Sir E. Malet again wrote to Lord Granville, as follows: —
  "The despatch of H.M.S. 'Invincible' to Alexandria, which was ordered by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of a passage in my despatch of the 2.3th ultimo, in which I had ventured to recommend that a ship of war should be stationed at Alexandria during the winter, assumed, from the force of circumstances, a different character from that which was intended. The complaint and the presence of the Turkish Commission gave it a political significance which had not originally belonged to it, with the ultimate result that, instead of being stationed at Alexandria, and fulfilling the object of preventing panics among the Foreign population, the 'Invincible' quitted the port on the day following her arrival.
  "I trust that this circumstance may not prevent Her Majesty's Government from carrying out the design with which the 'Invincible' was first despatched;"
  and, whether ho can state the dates of the arrivals and departures from Alexandria of any of Her Majesty's vessels of war between that date and the present time, and of the class, tonnage, and armament of such vessels?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the passages in Sir Edward Malet's despatches, to which the hon. Member refers, are correctly quoted. For the information respecting the movements and size of Her Majesty's ships, I must refer the hon. Member to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, How long it was since the 25th of September, when Sir Edward Malet wrote to Lord Granville that Alexandria had been left without the presence of any English man-of-war?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Gentleman's Question only appeared upon the Paper yesterday, and it was impossible for me to obtain the necessary information from the Admiralty by 2 o'clock to-day. I think it would be best to address the Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the hon. Baronet had referred him yesterday to the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, when he had put a Question

  1765
  to him to-day, tad declined to give him any answer.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member is inaccurate in saying that I referred him yesterday to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand my hon. Friend to say that yesterday the hon. Baronet referred him to me, and that I have declined to answer him. The hon. Baronet did not refer my hon. Friend to me. The words used, which, for greater accuracy, I have brought with me, were these; he concluded his answer by saying—
  "In the opinion of the Admiralty, however, it would not be right for me to state the purport of those instructions."
  That is hardly a reference to me for further information.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I am very sorry I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend. I therefore wish to ask him a Question. I want him to inform me, not what instructions the Admiralty have issued to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, but what were the measures taken for the protection of British life and property in Egypt up to the 11th of May, the Under Secretary of State having stated that he had received a despatch from Sir Beauchamp Seymour containing information on that question. It is a question of fact, and not of instruction.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot understand how the hon. Member can think that this Question can be answered by me. The answer of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if I must read it in its whole length, was this—"The despatch of Sir Beachamp Seymour containing an answer to the first part of the Question is on its way home." He did not say it had come, but that it was on its way home.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that if it was not inconvenient to the Prime Minister, he should like to ask him one Question arising out of the answer he had given as to the bases of the proposed Conference. The right hon. Gentleman, in his answer just now, had referred to a despatch of the 6th of February, in which the bases of the Conference were stated to be, as far as he understood them, the maintenance of life and property, the welfare of the Egyptian people as secured by the Firman of the
  1766
  Sultan, and the strict observance of International engagements. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question with regard to the last paragraph. Alluding to the Conference, the last paragraph said that it was also, in their opinion, the right of the Sultan to be a party in the proceedings of the discussion which might ensue. He wished to ask whether that portion of the arrangement so proposed by Lord Granville in February with respect to the Conference had been departed from, and whether the Government had abandoned the idea of the Sultan taking part in this discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; undoubtedly, it was our opinion that it would be his right, and it is so now; but the Sultan himself is of a different opinion, and in this particular ho does not fall in with the opinion which all the other Powers have arrived at. We have neither the inclination nor the power to override his judgment.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether, as the Porte had decided not to join the Conference, it would still be held at Constantinople?
  MR, GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD ROSS. MORE'S ESTATES.
  MR. DILLONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has been informed that several writs for arrears of rent have been served on the estates of Lord Rossmore, Stephen Murphy, and the Rev. Hans Acheson, in the county of Monaghan; that three writs have already been executed on the Rev. Mr. Acheson's property, the tenant's interest in each case being sold and purchased by the bailiff, with a view to bar them from all rights under the Arrears Bill; and, that ejectments on the title were served on June 12th; whether his attention has been directed to a letter from Rev. D. Donnelly, Lord Bishop of Clogher, dated June 1st, and in which occurs the following words:—
  "Writs, you see, are being issued over the Rossmore Estate, writs for rent arrears which every one knows the people are utterly unable to pay, writs which therefore mean simply, be Lord Rossmore's legal rights what they may, the utter destruction and annihilation of the unfortunate tenants;"
  whether he is aware that this system is being adopted in many parts of Ireland;

  1767
  and, whether, in view of this state of things, he will not now consider the necessity of immediately introducing a short Bill putting a stay of six months on the execution of all eviction decrees in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my attention has not been called to the instances mentioned otherwise than by the hon. Member's Question. I naturally read the Question with great pain, in consequence of the allegation which by implication it contains. With regard to the inquiry whether I am aware that this system is being adopted in many parts of Ireland, I had better refer the hon. Member to what has already been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Member further asks me whether I will consider the necessity of immediately introducing a short Bill putting a stay of six months on the execution of all evictions in Ireland? That is a repetition of a Question which I have already answered. I do not complain of the Question being repeated; but I can only refer the hon. Member to my former answer, in which I state that I know of no mode in which we can effect the object desired by the hon. Member, except by expediting ourselves, and, as far as we can, inducing others to expedite, the passing of the Arrears Bill. That this legislation should be expedited as much as possible is the interest, not of the tenants alone, but also of the landlords. I have received this morning a letter from a landlord in the West of Ireland, who was well known to me long ago, in which he states— and I place the utmost reliance upon his statement—that not only has he received no rent for the last four years, and that, being convinced that any attempt to evict would only cause crime, he has not evicted anyone, but that these Sessions he is sued by the Guardians of his Union for the payment of £192 for poor rates. Under these circumstances, we can only trust that in the interest of all, both landlords and tenants, everyone will strive to expedite the Irish legislation as much as possible.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has
  1768
  been called to a speech made by Mr. E. W. Duff, Junior Lord of the Treasury, at Banff, on the 16th instant, in which he is reported to have said:—
  "I believe the Government are determined to pass the Procedure Rules, if possible, before Parliament rises; and, if not, though of course I am not in Cabinet secrets, I believe by calling an Autumn Session for the purpose;"
  and, whether Mr. E. W. Duff has correctly described the intention of the Government of which he is a Member?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the speech of my hon. Friend; and I observed with pleasure that my hon. Friend, in the exercise of that caution, which is supposed to exist North of the Tweed in a degree at least equal to that in which it exists South of the Tweed, did not undertake to convey in his remarks the intentions of the Government; but said that his own opinion was that it would not be an unreasonable course if they were determined to carry the Procedure Rules; and, standing upon that opinion, he thought that the Government would act upon it. It was very natural, I think, with the perfect confidence my hon. Friend has in the Government, that he should think that whatever has commended itself to him as highly reasonable would be adopted by the Government. I shall, Sir, have something more to say on the subject when I come to speak on the Business of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether three letters, which were published by the "Times" newspaper, on Saturday, 10th June, and which purported to have been respectively addressed by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the President of the Board of Trade, to the Birmingham Trades Council, on the subject of the Corrupt Practices Elections Bill, are genuine; whether Her Majesty's Government propose to amend the Corrupt Practices Bill by charging official election expenses on the local rates; and, whether he is now prepared to inform the House what course he intends to take upon the amendment of the honourable Member for Stoke, referred to in the above-mentioned letter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the three letters referred to in the Question as having appeared in The Times are genuine. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of proposing to amend the Corrupt Practices Bill by charging official election expenses on the local rates.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MAC IVER,as a point of Order, asked the Speaker if it was not part of the unwritten law of Parliament that private Members should refrain from pressing on Ministers Questions which, in their discretion, it was not for the public interest should be answered; and also, if it was not part of the unwritten law of Parliament that Ministers who assumed to answer Questions should use reasonable endeavours to see that those answers were correct? The point on which he respectfully asked the judgment of the Speaker was whether the practice of making evasive and incorrect statements in reply to Questions was not disrespectful to Parliament and fraught with inconvenience.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking me a Question on a point of Order now arising, and therefore I must respectfully decline to answer.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have to move that the Arrears (Ireland) Bill have precedence, on every day for which it is put down, of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. I have postponed making this Motion until to-day, because when we commenced proceedings on the Prevention of Crime Bill I had no means of forecasting what would be the duration of those proceedings, or what would be the amount of pressure on the time of the House, and unless there were considerable pressure on the time of the House I did not wish to make a Motion of an innovating character. But, in the present circumstances, there is no need of any detailed justification upon making this Motion, so far as the immediate sub-
    1770
    ject-matter is concerned. The House is aware, from many previous declarations, that the Prevention of Crime and the Arrears Bills are both, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, absolutely necessary to be passed into law, and to be passed with such despatch as a just consideration of their provisions will allow. I do not know whether there is any disposition to contest that proposition generally; but I will not detain the House by dwelling on it. But intimation has been given, and not unreasonably, considering that we have now reached the 20th of June, that it would now be expected that the Government would give some account of their general views, as far as time permits, with regard to the further transaction of Public Business in the House; and, Sir, it is quite natural that when the Government are asking for time to push forward Business for which they are more immediately responsible, other Members of the House, who have business of their own in which they take a deep interest, should wish to be assured that the Government are not going to take advantage of the facilities that may be given to it for the purpose of giving any unfair precedence to measures, either which they have introduced or which they may intend to introduce, over Business in charge of independent Members. Of course, the House is aware that the Prevention of Crime Bill occupies, and has all along occupied, the first place in the view and intentions of the Government. As regards the intentions of the Government with respect to the Arrears Bill, I wish to say that, with the consent of the House, I should desire to pass it through Committee pro forma. The House is aware that that will in no manner diminish the privilege of any Member of discussing any portion of this measure, either on the Motion to leave the Chair or in Committee. But there are two or three changes which we wish to introduce into the Bill, and it is for the convenience of the House that changes of the kind should be embodied in the text of the Bill, rather than that a number of Amendments should be on the Paper in the name of the promoters of the Bill, possibly causing some confusion and some difficulty to other Members in giving Notice of Amendments which they may wish to propose. The Amendments which we wish to introduce into

    1771
    the Bill are already in type, and I believe may be distributed to-morrow morning, and the Bill committed pro forma on a future day. The Amendments we propose to introduce are substantially these. In the first place, there is an Amendment which is no alteration of the intention of the Bill. We are not quite satisfied with the definition in the Bill as it stands in regard to the particular words "accrued due," in the 1st clause, and in regard to determining the important point what rents paid may be set down as accrued in 1881. We wish to make our original intention, to which we adhere, perfectly clear. That is one change. The next point is this. As the House is aware, the clause in the Land Act of last year operated only to a very small extent, and we introduce an Amendment which is limited to this object, for the purpose of enabling a very few persons who took advantage of that clause to submit themselves to the conditions of the present Bill, which are not in all respects the same, and to go through the conditions and to take the benefit of the present Bill. I think that is a provision which will be generally approved. The third alteration touches another point of importance. It is to avoid the risk which might be if we were to place new duties in the hands of the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act at the present moment—a risk which might interfere with the great progress they are making in the important business they have in hand. We propose, therefore, to ask the House to empower the Land Commissioners, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to appoint competent persons for the purpose of making investigations into questions of fact which the Bill contemplates as being necessary to adjudication. These matters, it will be observed, raise questions of principle; but as they do not alter the corpus of the Bill, I propose to take the course I have stated. The next Bill of which I wish to take notice is the Tax Bill. I need not go into the details. The House is aware how it stands. It is an exceedingly simple measure, as our action is extremely straitened by the circumstances of the comparative revenue and charge of the country. In order to enable us to fulfil the engagement entered into at the commencement of the Session, the Bill proposes an augmentation on the tax on carriages. I do not anticipate
    1772
    any discussion, nor give any opinion on this subject; but the House will see, from the manner in which these two matters are associated together, that they will have to take their choice between granting the relief and imposing the charge, or letting the matter stand for another occasion, when the Government may be enabled to deal with the projected changes in the local charges and government. The Government hope to be able to obtain a measure dealing with this question next year. These subjects I have mentioned to the House already on former occasions. I will now refer to two Bills which are likely, I know, from Notice given, to be mentioned to-day. I will anticipate the hon. Members, and, so far as I can, open the way for the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bills, if they may feel it necessary to say anything on the subject of them. The first is the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. I have been requested to state the intentions of the Government in regard to this Bill. I can only say, Sir, that, in our opinion, the Act ought not to be suffered to expire; but there is an important question in relation to it with regard to large towns, which are now excluded from its operation. I cannot say whether it will or will not be convenient to deal with that during the present year. If it is so, I do not know that the Government are under any obligations to charge themselves with the conduct of the Bill; if it is not dealt with as to that important but secondary question—in that case it will be our duty to insert it in the General Continuance Act of the year. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has intimated that he will ask what facilities we can give, or whether we are prepared to give any facilities, for the further consideration of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, which deals with a subject in which he and many others take a great interest. Sir, when we are compelled to make sacrifices, some of them absolute and some of them contingent, of measures which seemed likely to be realized this Session, and measures of our own, and oven measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot enter into any engagement with him on this subject at the present time. When the two Irish Bills are disposed of [A laugh]— must say that experience

    1773
    causes me great anxiety that the House should make up its mind with despatch upon these two Irish Bills, for the sake of the best interests of Ireland; and I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be tempted to smile in connection with such a subject—when these two Bills are disposed of our command of the time of the House will have ceased, and private Members will then re-enter into possession of such rights as they usually enjoy at that period of the year. What I am going to say, Sir, I shall say not without some hesitation. I am by no means sure that the hon. Member will take advantage of it, or be inclined to take advantage of it; but I do feel great anxiety, and the Government feel great anxiety, that some progress should be made, if possible, in the business of satisfactorily legislating with regard to agricultural holdings on this side of St. George's Channel. There are several Bills before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland), behind me, has a Bill upon this subject. There is, I believe, a third Bill of another hon. Member —the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard). I do not know what view may be taken exactly on the merits of these Bills; but it may be that as to some of these Bills, or all of these Bills—I cannot say which, nor is it the business of the Government, as a Government, to charge itself with any judgment upon the merits of those Bills at the present moment—but it may be that, by favour, the House might be disposed to give to several of these Bills a second reading without the necessity of a debate at that stage. Well, Sir, what we think is this. If it were the pleasure of those in charge of any of those Bills, or of all of them—I do not interfere with any such arrangement, or give any particular opinion about it—but if it were the pleasure of the House to allow the privilege of a second reading, either without discussion or without any ample discussion, and if it were then the pleasure of the Gentlemen in charge of the Bills to move to refer them to Committees chosen pro hac vice, without committing them to the general judgment of the House in the manner indicated in the Rules laid upon the Table with respect to Procedure, the Government will make no objection. They have no intention of forcing that course upon hon. Members.
    1774
    They only wish to say that they will place no impediment to that course in case those in charge of other Bills, or the House generally, think that any good can be gained by the adoption of such a mode of action. We only propose this as a matter for consideration. There is one other point. There are two Bills relating to Scotland which I wish to mention. One is on the subject of Scotch entail. It has not yet reached this House, but it is likely to arrive here; and I believe it represents, so far as I have yet been informed, a very great unanimity of Scottish feeling on the subject. I hope, if that is so, if the Bill should arrive here from the House of Lords, we certainly should be anxious that it should be passed. There is another Bill relating to endowments in Scotland, to which also many Scotch Members attach great value. I cannot say that it will be in our power to appropriate the time of the House for that measure, which is a Government Bill. But if Scotch Members think that any suggestion such as I have made with respect to the Bills of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland) can be made available in that matter, that is a question of which we by no means intend to prevent the discussion. But further than that we do not go. It would not be fair to do so. The appointment of large Committees for practically dealing with certain Bills is part of our own plan in relation to Procedure, and we do not desire, by indirect means, to obtain the sanction of the House to that plan. Well, Sir, these are all the Bills which I should mention at the present moment. But there is still an exception. There is the question of the amendment of the Land Act. That comprises several important questions. I do not know that I can enumerate them all from recollection. There is the question of leases, with regard to which certain recommendations have been submitted to the Government by the Land Commissioners. There is the question relating to the labourers, with respect to which also certain recommendations have been submitted; and, thirdly, there are the Purchase Clauses. I can announce no intention, no positive intention, upon the part of the Government; I can only give assurances that we will endeavour to make up our minds, at what we think the proper time, when

    1775
    we approach the close of the discussion of the two Bills now before the House. But, Sir, I have made a serious mistake in passing over an important measure, or rather three measures, which I think I ought to have mentioned to the House. It was in my anxiety to get at the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that I overlooked them. The first is the Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices. That has made considerable progress, and it is the intention of the Government to persevere with it. It would involve great loss and waste of the time of the House if we entertained any intention not to send that Bill on to the other House with a view to its passing into law. There are two other Bills on important subjects—one relating to certain boroughs, the total or partial disfranchisement of which is provided for; the other is a Bill relating to the amendment and continuance of the Ballot Act. With respect to these two subjects, I cannot, at the present moment, announce any final decision. Our proceedings must depend upon the progress of Business. I, therefore, distinguish between them and the Corrupt Practices Bill, upon which our mind is certainly made up, as to our duty in persevering with them. With respect to these, it will be our duty to take further time before we arrive at a conclusion. There are two other subjects, one the amendment of the Land Act, of which I have sufficiently disposed for the present purpose; the other is the important question of Procedure. At the present moment I have no positive announcement to make excepting this—that the Government remain more than ever convinced that a satisfactory and thorough settlement of the question of Procedure may, in one sense, be said to transcend every other measure of importance—in this sense, that upon it depends the efficiency as well as the dignity of the great legislative instrument by which the Business of the Empire is mainly carried on—namely, the British House of Commons. With the evils of the present system we shall deem it our duty to deal if any legitimate method be open to us. We shall deem it our duty not to remit the settlement of this question of Procedure to another Session of Parliament in the coming year. We desire that when Parliament meets for its annual Session in February next, or about its usual time, whatever precisely that time may be, it
    1776
    shall not have about its neck the terrible embarrassment brought about by the present state of its Rules and Orders, but shall be enabled to set about with something like its old energy and dignity to the transaction of its Business. At the present moment, I do not go further; but with respect to those matters on which I have not spoken definitely, when we obtain some farther daylight, with respect to the two Bills now before the House, I shall be desirous, and it will be quite right and just, to give the House some further information.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill have precedence, on every day for which it is set down, of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions, except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, as far as relates to the particular measure to which this Motion points, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly, from his point of view, stated the case very fairly. But I think we ought to take care, before we assent to the proposal he makes, to enter these two caveats. In the first place, it must not be assumed that by giving assent to the proposal that we should lay aside all other Business for the purpose of proceeding with this Bill with regard to arrears that we are giving assent to the scope and merits of the Bill. I am quite aware of the inconvenience that arises from keeping this burning question open any longer than can be avoided; and I am, on that ground, not unprepared to agree to the proposal for the rapid discussion of that Bill, subject to one or two reservations. But I think it ought to be clearly understood that we do not thereby abandon the objection which many of us feel to this Bill, and that we shall not refrain from criticizing, and even, if necessary, opposing it. Besides that general observation, I wish to put a particular question to the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to certain information which I think the House ought to be in possession of before we proceed to the discussion of that Bill. There were two questions put last week—one by myself, the other by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).
    MR. GLADSTONE: It was an omission on my part. I should have men-

    1777
    tioned that. The first Paper relating to the sufficiency of the Church Surplus Fund, and the finding of the money, is actually in type, and, I hope, will be in the Vote Office this afternoon and circulated to-morrow. The second Paper is also all but ready, and will be in the hands of Members, I hope, to-morrow or the next day.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That is satisfactory so far as it goes. We shall have time, no doubt, to examine that. "With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Bill should go into Committee pro formâ, that undoubtedly will be convenient, and we shall have no objection to make. Then we have had from the Prime Minister, besides, a statement with regard to the general condition of Business and the prospects of the year. I must say, from one or two points of view, I feel disappointed by the statement which has just been made; and while I quite agree that it is of importance that we should not lose any time that can be avoided in proceeding with these Irish Bills, I do think there are other questions which ought to be borne in mind, and about which far too little has been said. With regard to the Budget Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was one of the measures that would be proceeded with. We knew that; but what we want to know is, when it will be proceeded with? Is it intended that the Budget Bill is to stand over until after the two Irish Bills have been disposed of? I cannot help thinking that that would lead to some financial inconvenience. I do not know how the financial arrangements of the country would stand, with leaving a Bill of that sort over to the end of the financial year. Whether it has been considered or not, we ought to be told when the Bill is likely to be taken, or whether we are to wait for the indefinite period pointed out by the description that it will be not only after the Arrears Bill, but after the Prevention of Crime Bill has been concluded. I rather infer from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Carriage Tax that the proposal is likely to be withdrawn. If so, that would answer the question which otherwise I should put; but if it were persevered with, we must remember that it will be an additional tax, imposed for the purpose of giving
    1778
    certain relief, and we shall require to be informed how that relief is given, and take care that at the end of the Session we have not been putting on a burden without giving any relief. If I am correct in reading between the lines of what the Prime Minister has said, and in inferring that the Carriage Tax is likely to be withdrawn, we shall not be put in that particular position. But it seems to me that in the minds of all who feel strongly on the question of local burdens, some dissatisfaction will arise that the question of the Road Tax should not have been dealt with after all; and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) may, perhaps, feel that he has a word or two to say upon this subject at the proper time. There is another point on which we have been told nothing, and that is, what are we to do about Committee of Supply? Now, undoubtedly, the Business of Ireland is extremely important, but the Business of Supply is, perhaps, the primary duty of the House of Commons; and we have had this year uncommonly few opportunities of proceeding with Supply, which, consequently, is in a very backward state. I have no accurate account of the precise state of the Votes; but my impression is that only one Vote has been taken for the Navy, eight for the Army, and I think the Education Vote has been taken, but not the whole of it, and some two or three Votes of comparatively little importance have been taken in the first class of the Civil Service Estimates. That on the 20th of June is by no means large progress, and there are certain matters in regard to these Estimates which demand our examination. We on this side of the House have been reproached for our extravagance, and we want to have an opportunity of seeing some of that economy practised which was so loudly preached, that we may have an opportunity of profiting by the lesson. We have not been told anything with regard to the other Bills of Her Majesty's Government. There has been a very clean sweep of a considerable number of measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech. With regard to those which have been proceeded with, undoubtedly I express the general feeling on this side of the House when I say that we are glad to hear that the Government do not intend

    1779
    to drop the Corrupt Practices Bill. A great deal of time has been spent on it, it is a very important Bill, and we are glad it is to he proceeded with. I am not sure that it will not be found possible to deal with one or two other Bills which have made progress, either in the hands of the Government, or in those of private Members. The Agricultural Bills, to which reference has been made, are, doubtless, important Bills. I speak especially of the Agricultural Bills which have been mentioned by the Prime Minister, and which I think of great importance. I will also venture to refer to another Bill, which is in the hands of a private Member opposite, and which was to have been one of the Government measures. I mean the Bankruptcy Bill, which has made some progress. I suppose this Bill will be proceeded with. These are the matters upon which we must accept such a statement as the Government can make. Subject to the question which I have asked as to when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Budget Bill, and also to what I have said of the importance of taking Supply, I should have no further observations to make upon the necessary measures which are likely to be before us. But I must say one word on the subject of the Rules of the House. It seems to me that the Government are taking a course with regard to the Procedure Rules which is not likely to facilitate the real Business of the House. It seems to me that a great deal of time has been consumed in the present Session—I will not use the word"wasted"—by a not very well advised attempt to pass those Rules. I cannot but think that much wiser stops might have been taken. A great deal of irritation might have been avoided, and practical improvements made in the Rules of Procedure, if the Government could have persuaded themselves to take the matter up in a different way. I am quite aware that when the Government have got into a contest with a certain part of the House, and feel themselves supported by a majority behind them, it is difficult to stop in a course on which they have entered and to strike out a new one. But so much time has elapsed, circumstances have so much changed in many particulars, that I cannot but think that the Government may yet be disposed to take counsel in this matter, and to consider
    1780
    whether they cannot make these proposals in a form more likely to be acceptable to the general feeling of the House and more efficient to the purposes in view. Whether we deal with it in this Session, that is in the usual Session, or in the manner hinted at by the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. P. W. Duff), and rather ingeniously hinted at by the First Lord of the Treasury when ho said that the Government would not be willing to remit this question to another Session—which was rather significant of its being dealt with in the coming autumn—I can only say we must wait. But I think the last proposal is one which will be extremely unpopular, and I greatly doubt whether it will tend to the satisfactory settlement of the question. Well, there is still a subject which has not been alluded to by the Prime Minister, upon which I should like to say a word or two, and I would introduce it by the observation that a great many complaints have been made, and the country at large has been a good deal surprised in consequence of the large and increasing number of Questions continually put in this House. No doubt the number of questions is large. But it is to be borne in mind that one cause is the fewness of opportunities for discussing questions of importance in consequence of the absorption of the time of the House by the Government taking possession of private Members' days, and also of the length of time expended in discussing Government measures. I only mention that in passing, in order to say that I think the Government, in considering the time which remains at their disposal, have forgotten that it will be important before long that we should have the means of discussing a portion of their foreign policy. There has been no disposition—on the contrary, there has been the direct opposite of a disposition—on the part of this side of the House to embarrass or annoy the Government in the policy they are pursuing. But do not let the Government deceive themselves in consequence of that. Do not let them think there is any indifference on our part. It is a subject which it will be necessary for us to discuss, and before very long we shall have to call upon the Government to state when it will be possible to give information which will enable us to discuss it. It will be quite impossible

    1781
    to make a reckoning as to the close of the Session without taking into account the necessity of that. I do not know that I need say anything more on these points at the present moment. I think, as far as the proposal goes, that the Government might have left it till later. But we have no reason to object to the particular proposal to do for the Bill in its remaining stages what we did at its second reading. We gave it precedence on its second reading, as we gave precedence to the Prevention of Crime Bill. We think the same course may be followed with regard to the Arrears Bill, with the understanding that we do not waive any objections or abandon any intentions we may have of criticizing or even opposing it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if any right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentleman opposite wished to put questions on any of the subjects he had mentioned, perhaps it would be more convenient that they should be asked now, so that he might deal with them all at once.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Motion was that the Arrears of Kent Bill should have precedence on every day on which it was set down. The effect of that would be to enable the Government to take other Business on Government nights, and the Arrears of Rent Bill on Wednesdays and on the Morning Sittings of Tuesday and Friday. No doubt, it was the intention of the Government to take the Arrears of Rent Bill from day to day; but, as he said, the Motion would enable them simply to appropriate the days of private Members. He presumed that, with the necessary intervention of Supply, it was intended that the Bill should be continued from day to day.
    MR. ONSLOWinquired of the Speaker whether, if he put a question to the Prime Minister, to suit the right hon. Gentleman's convenience, he could afterwards speak on the general policy of the Government?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the hon. Gentleman addressed the House now, he could hot afterwards make another speech.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the Government would endeavour to proceed with the Prevention of Floods Bill on an early day?
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Prime Minister had spoken of the former efficiency of the House of Commons, and he rejoiced that he had done so, for they
    1782
    had been Members of the same Party from 1843 to 1846. As an old Member, he desired to remark that the delay and obstruction which had been witnessed of late would have been quite impossible in former Parliaments. The House had no right to throw upon its Leader the responsibility for its own inefficiency. There seemed a change in the present House from the temper and disposition of former Houses. There was more individuality, and less independence among Members generally. The Rules of the House were the same as they were in 1843 and in 1846. The House had forgotten its corporate duty. Supposing that the House needed new Rules, as had, indeed, been admitted, he (Mr. Newdegate) could only say that the House was already very late in adopting them. The habit of putting questions had grown into an abuse. This practice frittered away the responsibility of Ministers, while it proved the inability of the House to exact their responsibility. As an old Member, he would appeal to the House to vindicate the transaction of its Business from the stigma now resting upon it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that the Settled Land Bill of Lord Cairns, which had passed the House of Lords, and, after a second reading in the Commons, had been referred to a Select Committee, and which had been regarded most favourably in all quarters, would receive, at all events, the favourable attention of the Government this Session. It affected the interests of a large number of people.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he felt grateful to the Prime Minister for his sympathetic tone with regard to a Bill in which he felt interested. The right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion with regard to Bills relating to agriculture, without binding himself to a suggestion which, he thought, it was his duty to notice. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that those Bills should be referred to something like a Grand Committee. There were three of them, and one that stood in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland) contained so much which he individally approved that he did not think there would be any objection to referring it in connection with one which stood in his own name to a Select Committee; but the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard) con-

    1783
    tained principles to which he was so entirely opposed, that he must guard himself at once against being supposed to be willing to have anything to do with it. As to the kind of Committee alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, he felt precluded from expressing any opinion, or, at all events, a favourable one; he could not predict whether its proceedings would be likely to facilitate the progress of a measure. For this Session, at any rate, he should like to see the two Bills referred to a Select Committee. As to the Rules of Procedure, there was no monopoly on either side of a desire to see some effective change made in them. He would suggest the substitution of what he would describe as an individual clÔture for the general and sweeping clÔture proposed by the Prime Minister's Resolution—a solution of the difficulty which he believed would find more favour than the right hon. Gentleman imagined. As to the present Motion, it was hardly fair to ask them to assent to it before they had seen the Amendments proposed to be made in the Arrears Bill; it was possible they might influence Members in considering the Motion, particularly if, like himself, their views were hostile to the measure. But why was the Motion made at the present time? It seemed premature until they approached somewhat nearer the completion of the Committee on the Crime Bill, especially as it was understood there was no intention of taking any other Business until the Bill was through Committee. The Motion might very well have been postponed at least a few days longer. He hoped it would not be agreed to, unless they had a distinct assurance that no further attempt would be made to carry the Procedure Resolutions in their present shape during the present Session.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he would arrange that the Committee on the Arrears Bill should take precedence of the Report on the Prevention of Crime Bill? He also wished to direct his particular attention to the extreme importance of endeavouring to do something this Session for the agricultural labourers of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed that he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had had a Motion on the Paper dealing with this subject, and that, as it had occupied the second place on the Orders of the Day for this evening, he ought to have fairly
    1784
    counted upon the subject being discussed to-night had it not been cut off by the urgency given to the Crime Bill. He should do his best during the remainder of the Session to obtain a chance of bringing the subject before the House; but he sought to impress upon the Prime Minister the great necessity of the Government taking the matter up, so that it might be dealt with in an effective way this Session. It ought to be clearly under-stood whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take up the Arrears Bill on any night on which the Government were unable to proceed further with the Crime Bill. He also thought that fair opportunity should be given to the Opposition to discuss the increasing financial expenditure of the Government.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Government would not accede to the request of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to send two Bills only to a Select Committee, and leave out that of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), which he believed the farmers of England would very much prefer to the other measures. Let that Bill be examined and considered along with the others, and it would be found to compare most favourably in the best interests of agriculture. The very fact of the hon. Member condemning it proved that there was some good in it. He hoped the Prime Minister would do justice to the farmers, and if Bills were to be committed to a Grand Committee, then the three should be dealt with on equal terms.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he desired to ask the Prime Minister whether he had the slightest intention of putting down the Arrears Bill and taking it on any night before the disposal of the Crime Bill? On one previous occasion the Arrears Bill was placed at the head of the Orders before Supply on a Friday, obviously, ho presumed, with the intention of that Bill being taken, if possible, before Supply. He feared the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was making this Motion just now was that he might have an opportunity of proceeding with the Arrears Bill, perhaps at a very late hour of the evening, after he had been unable to proceed any further with the Crime Bill that night. Such a course would be extremely inconvenient. With regard to the Budget Bill, the right hon. Gentleman must not suppose that by

    1785
    giving up the increase of taxation, as he proposed to do, he would dispose of a question in which many hon. Members felt a deep interest. They thought it was high time that the question of the management of finance by Her Majesty's Government should be fully discussed. No question influenced more the decision of the constituencies at the last General Election than the attack made by those who were at present in power upon the financial arrangements of those who were now in Opposition. They ought to understand that a full opportunity would be given to discuss, not only the actual proposals made by the Government in this year's Budget, but also the whole scale of expenditure in this year's Budget, with a view of ascertaining how it was that the expenditure of the Government was on a much larger scale than the expenditure which they so much denounced when they were in Opposition.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the Prevention of Floods Bill raised a matter which the present condition of the country made one of considerable urgency and importance; and he hoped the Prime Minister would not entirely exclude the further consideration of that Bill from the programme of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), gave expression to a very natural curiosity, which must be felt in many parts of the House, as to why the Government made this particular proposal at this particular time. It was quite obvious that there was no necessity for it. The Motion, if carried, could not possibly be operative at all for a week, or even 10 days. Why, then, should the Government have come down on this particular afternoon to ask the House to assent to this apparently useless proposal? He thought the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had indicated what possibly might be the reason of this; and he should be very glad if he could feel quite certain that they were not on the trace of some fresh compact between Her Majesty's Government and those Members representing Irish constituencies, who had hitherto so persistently and with such apparent zeal opposed the Prevention of Crime Bill. Would the Government, in
    1786
    answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, assure the House that they were not going to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Longford, and to take the Committee on the Arrears Bill before the Report on the Prevention of Crime Bill, so that while they were trying to coerce the Irish Members to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill, by holding the Arrears Bill before them, they might, perhaps, try to coerce other hon. Members to pass the Arrears Bill, in order that the Crime Prevention Bill might afterwards follow? Whatever might be the intentions of the Government, there was no doubt that the introduction of the Arrears Bill operated in Ireland as a "no rent" manifesto, which was far more effectual for its purpose than the previous "no rent" manifesto that was issued. Moreover, it was more dangerous to the Irish people, because, while the authors of the earlier "no rent" manifesto were confined in prison, the authors of the second "no rent" manifesto were Her Majesty's Government sitting on the Treasury Bench. It might be that the hopes of hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies had been somewhat blunted, and that the Motion made to-day was a kind of refresher to show them that the Government were in earnest, and meant to carry out what some people believed to be the bargain made in the great "Kilmainham Treaty." He would be no party to a proceeding of this kind, and he hoped there were some Members on that side of the House who would support him in dividing the House against the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had made. It was his intention to oppose the Arrears Bill most resolutely at every step, because he believed it was a measure which would be unjust to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and mischievous and pauperizing to the Irish people. He promised the right hon. Gentleman that when the Bill was brought forward for discussion he would give it a most relentless opposition. If hon. Members were prepared to oppose a Bill of this kind, they had a right to refuse to give the Government facilities for passing it. By voting for the Resolution they would be making themselves a party to the refresher which was thrown out in order to catch the votes of Members from Ireland. In his opinion, those who were

    1787
    opposed to the Arrears Bill ought to vote against the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as the Government intended to commit the Arrears Bill pro formâ, he wished to direct attention to a matter which, he thought, was germane to that measure. The Land Act of last Session, according to the construction placed on it, permitted the judicial rent to date from the day of the application of the tenant in all cases where the tenant made his application on the occasion of the first sitting of the Court. About 40,000 or 60,000 made application at that time, and, consequently, they were placed in a very advantageous position as compared with those who made application afterwards. He would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether they could not see their way to make all arrears of rent which did not now come within the provisions of this Bill to be computed on the basis of the decision of the Court, where the tenant had made an application to have a fair rent fixed— that was to say, if a tenant was paying £15a-year rent, and his judicial rent was fixed at £10, he should be entitled to claim a rebate of £5. In that way the tenants who had not yet made an application to the Court would be encouraged to enter the Land Court, and their landlords would be encouraged to make those settlements out of Court which were so desirable, if the Act were to succeed in its object. He was afraid he had not conveyed his meaning very clearly, but perhaps the Prime Minister would understand it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will first of all notice the last suggestion which has been made to me. The suggestion is that, on the committal pro formâ of the Arrears Bill, the Government should introduce a provision which would have the effect of applying the reduction of rent which may be made by the Court to the arrears of rent. I am bound to say, without at present entering into the merits of the proposal, that, as far as I have ever viewed the question of committal pro formâ, my opinion, and, I think, the practice of the House is, that the changes introduced are introduced for the mechanical convenience—if I may use the phrase—of all parties, and that they are generally understood to be changes in furtherance of the principles
    1788
    of a Bill, but not changes introducing new principles of importance. Therefore, such a subject could not be entertained in connection with a committal pro formâ. Even if the proposal of the hon. Member was fit to be introduced—and I am bound to say I do not think it is—I cannot, therefore, see my way to a discussion of it in the House. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), I quite agree with him that the Arrears Bill is a measure of such importance that it ought to be taken at the commencement of the evening, as is the usual practice. With respect to the precedence between the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill, I have to remind the House of what I ventured to say on more than one occasion— namely, that the Crime Bill takes precedence of the Arrears Bill, but that the convenience, and even the necessity of the case, requires that there shall be intervals at certain stages in the prosecution of the Crime Bill, and these intervals I should wish to turn to account for the purpose of forwarding the Arrears Bill. With regard to the question why this proposal is made to-day, it should be recollected that it was made to-day after a Notice of several days. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) professes to know exactly how long the Committee on the Crime Prevention Bill will last; but I have not so much foresight as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it is our duty to be prepared for any acceleration of the proceedings that might take place. We may have clauses less thorny and difficult than those with which we have been dealing, which may enable the House to dispose of the Bill sooner than at present appears probable. With regard to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), I do not intend to interfere in any way, on the part of the Government, as to the Bills he has mentioned; but I wish to leave the matter entirely to the free consideration of those concerned. With regard to the Settled Land Bill, of course the Government can say nothing positive, except that they would endeavour to give the same fair play and fair consideration, when the question arises, to that Bill which they have given upon former occasions. With regard to the question by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), the

    1789
    right ton. Gentleman is perfectly right in his views. It is necessary for us to reserve the power of proceeding with other Business, because of the necessity which may arise for Supply, or in case it should be found necessary to proceed with the Tax Bill; but unquestionably we have no intention of interpolating any Government Business, unless it may be a matter of necessity, to the prejudice of the Prevention of Crime Bill in the first instance, and the Arrears Bill in the second. With regard to the Bill for the Prevention of Floods, we shall be very glad if opportunities can be found for proceeding with it; but it is not possible at present to make any positive announcement respecting it. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) asked when we should proceed with the Budget? That is not an unnatural question. "We have not had, as yet, any intimation from the Department of positive inconvenience arising from the delay. I must say the delay is open to objection. It is the regular practice that the Budget Bill should come forward a short time after the Budget, and it is a practice which we have only been parties to interrupting because of the extreme necessity of other Business. As it is, the Budget Bill will come forward, should it be practically necessary, whenever we find the necessity arise; and if the necessity does not arise, it will come forward when we have proceeded with the Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill to such a point as to make it not inconvenient to the House to take it; and the same with respect to Supply. No very long time will elapse before it will be necessary to make an application on the subject of Supply.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: A Vote on Account?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The first necessity will not be a Vote on Account, but for one of the great Services, and we could not ask the House to go at large into the fields of Supply and Miscellaneous Services without causing a very great interruption and delay in these Irish measures; and that, I think, would be even a greater evil than the postponement of Supply, which I quite admit to be a serious evil. With reference to the subject of Procedure, various suggestions and recommendations have been made. But I think it is better that I
    1790
    should reserve myself in regard to the subject until further progress has been made towards the termination of discussion upon the two Irish Bills. But in one matter I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), that the time we have already spent on the subject of Procedure ought not to be thrown away, unless it be an absolute necessity; and I think I have already said that nothing but absolute necessity will prevent us going forward during the present year—and I hope during the present Session—with the subject of Procedure. Beyond that I cannot enter into it in detail at the present moment, but must wait until circumstances are more matured.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was one point that had scarcely been cleared up, and that was, what were the relative positions to be occupied hereafter by the two Bills—the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill? The Prime Minister had spoken of availing himself of the interstices that might occur in the Prevention of Crime Bill, in order to deal with the question of arrears. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to keep back the Prevention of Crime Bill for any purpose one moment longer than was absolutely required for taking its various stages in regular form? For instance, when that Bill had passed through Committee, would a discussion take place upon the Arrears Bill only until the reprint of the Prevention of Crime Bill had been placed in the hands of hon. Members?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The progress of the Prevention of Crime Bill will only be delayed when it is for the convenience of the House.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the announcement made last night by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had caused the passing of the Prevention of Crime Bill to be a matter of more importance than the convenience of the House of Commons, for he had stated that if the Bill was discussed at great length, and thereby delayed, it was impossible to say what might not happen before it became law. According to the statements of those representing the Irish Department of the Government, the importance of passing the Prevention of Crime Bill far transcended the convenience of the House of Commons. That being the case, did the right hon. Gentleman in-

    1791
    tend to delay that Bill by a single moment?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, no; not one single moment.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought it only right to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was under the impression that the Arrears Bill was one involving mere detail he was entirely mistaken. He (Mr. J. Lowther) thought he spoke the sentiments of the large majority of the Conservative Party, when he said he believed that the Arrears Bill was offering a direct premium on fraud and an official recognition of dishonesty. The right hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, had taken him to task for using language outside the House which he was not prepared to use in it; but, without reproducing his or any other speeches, he would merely say that it was within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the Arrears Bill had been described as part and parcel of a compact, treaty, or arrangement, and as partaking of the character of infamy. He believed it had been so described in the House of Commons—not by him, but with the general approval of the Conservative Members. With feelings so strong as many hon. Members entertained with regard to that Bill, it was not consistent with their duty not to make the most emphatic protests against the principles upon which it was based. He confessed he had heard the speech made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland with great regret. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of evictions and outrages in the same breath. He had spoken of simultaneous Returns of the evictions and outrages that had taken place, and he had, moreover, spoken of the cruelty of evictions. With the exception of two expressions of opinion which were historical, he had never heard any expression of opinion more calculated to cause serious evils in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had coupled the legitimate exercise of legal rights—rights which were legal at the present moment—in the same breath with breaches of the law, and even with terrible murders. The two expressions of opinion antecedent to that of the right hon. Gentleman were the well-known declaration of Lord Clarendon, in which eviction and felony were coupled in the same sentence, and the other expression of opinion was that which the Prime Minister,
    1792
    to some extent, apparently modified the other night.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Never.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not heard what he had to state.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman said I apparently modified an expression of opinion in regard to evictions, and I said "Never."
    Mr. J. LOWTHER: What he (Mr. J. Lowther) said was that the right hon. Gentleman modified an expression of opinion with which he had been credited with regard to the opinion, as he termed it, that the people of Ireland might form in regard to evictions.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I say I never modified it.
    MR. J. LOWTHERbegged to submit to the correction. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given a correction of that which ho characterized as an erroneous impression that prevailed in the public mind respecting a well-known passage in one of his celebrated speeches. Passing that by, he would just emphasize this point—that a Representative of the Government having coupled evictions and outrages in the same breath, it became a matter for the House to consider how far they were entitled to allow measures dealing with those two subjects to be simultaneously dealt with without entering their most emphatic protest. The Chief Secretary had also drawn a distinction between two different classes of evictions—namely, those of tenants who could and would not pay, and those who were actually unable to pay. Was he to understand the right hon. Gentleman to hold that there was an act of cruelty and hardship on the part of the landlord involved in parting with a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent? He rather gathered, from an expression which fell from the Chief Secretary the other day, that the right hon. Gentleman considered it an act of cruelty for a landlord to evict from his estate a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent, and who had no prospect of ever being able to pay— that it was a hardship to evict a tenant who was absolutely incapable of carrying on his occupation as a farmer. Now, against any such idea he must utter his emphatic protest. In his judgment, if a tenant was not merely suffering from temporary adversity, but from hopeless

    1793
    insolvency, and was unable to pay his creditors in general, and his landlord in particular—if his landlord saw that there was no reasonable prospect of the tenant regaining his solvency, and pursuing agriculture with advantage to himself and to the community, then the landlord was thoroughly justified, and, in fact, it was his bounden duty, to part with that tenant.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified, on the Motion then before the House, in discussing the details of the Arrears Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question immediately before the House is simply a proposal for giving precedence in certain circumstances to a particular Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman is bound to confine himself to that Question.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he meant to do that, and the Speaker would no doubt have called him to Order had he failed to do so. He had consistently throughout his observations avoided entering in any shape or form into the details of the Arrears Bill. He had merely pointed out to the House matters for consideration at the present stage of their discussion. He hoped that the Government would be prepared to give them an assurance that not a moment would unnecessarily be lost in the prosecution of the Prevention of Crime Bill—that was to say, that if the discussion on the Arrears Bill, which must of necessity be one of some duration, should not be brought to a termination before the Prevention of Crime Bill was ready for another stage, the Government would proceed with all despatch with that important measure, which stood first for their consideration. In conclusion, he would only say that as the Arrears Bill involved the proposal that the honest and industrious tenant farmers of England, and the struggling taxpayers of the United Kingdom at large, who had honourably endeavoured to meet their legal obligations during a period of great hardship, should pay the rent of the disloyal and seditious persons who had, during exceptionally favourable seasons, deliberately withheld their rent, which they were able to pay if they were solvent men, the Government must expect a full and ample discussion of so novel and so serious a proposal.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was in rather an awkward position, for the right hon. Gentleman had made one or two remarks about himself which he was afraid of answering, or referring to, without being out of Order. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to protest against the deductions of the right hon. Gentleman from a simple sentence of his the other day. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had coupled two very different and incongruous things— the exercise of the landlord's legal rights with breaches of law and actual murder, and he called that an expression of opinion on his part. Whence did it all come? Because he had said that in addition to a daily return of outrages the Government proposed to have a daily return of evictions. He had simply intended to justify the labour and expense of a daily return by a precedent; and no Member who heard him could have thought that he in any way coupled the two ideas. Then the right hon. Member asked whether he inferred any cruelty from the landlord parting with the tenant who was hopelessly insolvent? [Mr. J. LOWTHER: Hardship.] Well, he would call it hardship — whether he inferred hardship on the part of the landlord who turned out a tenant who was hopelessly insolvent. No; he inferred no such thing. What he did say was that if, as in the cases which their officers reported, the rent of the holding was far too high; if the tenant had gone through several very bad seasons, and from no fault of his own could not pay the rent; then, at the time when there had passed through both Houses of Parliament a Land Act which was the Constitutional and received method of pacifying Ireland by fixing a fair rent, and when a Bill was on the Table for the purpose of enabling a tenant to pay his arrears, the landlord who put the tenant out of the power of getting the advantage of these two measures sadly hampered the Executive in Ireland, and did something in spirit, if not illegally, to defeat the intentions of the Legislature.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, it was the duty of the Tory Party to vote against the Motion, because they did not really know what the Arrears Bill was at the present time. To put himself in Order, and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of answering one or two questions he

    1795
    was about to put, he should, if necessary, conclude with a Motion. He wished to learn from the Prime Minister whether proper opportunities would be given for bringing forward important questions connected with the affairs of Egypt and of India. If the programme of the Government were carried out, he feared that they could not have a discussion on the Indian Budget much be-fore the beginning of September. He asked whether the Prime Minister intended to pass the Rules of Procedure or the Corrupt Practices Bill first? The Corrupt Practices Bill could not be duly considered by the House if it were put off till the end of August, when there would probably be few Members present. Again, were they to rattle through the Estimates this year in the same way as they did last year? The Arrears Bill was an iniquitous measure, and one to which hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House should endeavour to offer a strenuous and persistent opposition. He did not believe that the country at heart cared two straws about the clôture Resolutions. It was easy for the right hon. Gentlemen to get some Liberal meeting now and then to pass a resolution urging the House to deal with them; but the inconvenience of an Autumn Session would far outweigh any facilities which the passing of the Resolutions would afford. Complaints had been made by the Government of the way in which the practice of questioning Ministers had increased. That increase, however, was solely due to the reticence of the Government, particularly of the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and if the Government would cease to give evasive replies they would find the number of Questions at once diminish. He wished to know whether it would be possible to take a discussion of the affairs of Egypt, if necessary, between the passing of the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill, a discussion from which they ought not to be precluded? He should be glad also to hear from the Government when the Indian Budget was to be looked for, and whether another Vote was to be taken on account, making the almost unprecedented number of three Votes on Account that Session?
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the House had received another illustra-
    1796
    tion of the sort of leadership exercised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) over the Conservative Party. He did not think ho would be far wrong in stating that, for this occasion at least, the right hon. Baronet had been formally deposed on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), seconded, with his usual rollicking political incompetence, by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther). He was afraid that the spirit which had been displayed by the light horse of the Conservative Party on this occasion was only too sure an indication of the treatment which the Arrears Bill would receive in "another place," when it would come more particularly under the purview of a Conservative statesman who, in many respects, was not altogether dissimilar from the political temperament of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had protested before, and of course he would protest again, against the deplorable action of the Government in introducing a Coercion Bill, destined, as he believed it to be, to strangle most of the benefits which might otherwise arise from their remedial legislation; but at present he merely wished to observe that in the observations which had fallen from the lips of the Premier they had not heard the slightest indication of any intention of discussing the Colonial and Indian policy of the Government. He ventured to say that the policy which had handed over to John Dunn a nation on whom they had unjustly made war, which had permitted the deplorable scandals in the Pacific, whereby the British flag was made a veritable black flag of piracy, and which refused to listen to the wrongs of 250,000,000 tortured human beings in India, was worthy the attention of Parliament. He could assure the House that the grievances of the Indian people were becoming matters of comment in the Native Press of India, and even in the Press of Egypt; and the Government were bound to give facilities for discussing them as a part of the Business of this Imperial Parliament.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must invite the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had been speaking to that portion of the Business of the House which concerned the people of India. He was not aware that he

    1797
    was more out of Order than the Prime Minister, who introduced several subjects connected with their Business, but omitted some of the most important. Would the Government give any opportunity for condemning the default in bringing to justice the murderers of Bengal prisoners, and the flogging of starving prisoners?
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he did not intend to travel so far a-field as the hon. Member who had just sat down; but he wished to express his entire concurrence with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). No reason existed why special facilities should be given to the Government for passing the Arrears Bill through the House. They on that side of the House were not only opposed to the principle of the Bill, but they regarded it as a measure which was tainted in its origin; and they knew it to be the first-fruit of that transaction which in that House they must not call a treaty, but which was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford as a negotiation. He (Mr. Raikes) rose more particularly for the purpose of asking the House whether it was not possible to obtain from the Government some more satisfactory and definite forecast as to what was in the mind of Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to the other Business of the Session? They had heard something that day about the cloture Resolutions. He rather objected to that form of nomenclature, because there was only one Resolution which was directly aimed at the cloture. The other Resolutions affected the Business of the House; and he was sure that many hon. Members on both sides would have been in favour of many of them were it not that they were tied by the neck to one objectionable Resolution which excited the hostility of the House. At a proper time hon. Members on that side would have been perfectly willing to have considered and passed a great many of them, and the Government might now have been using them to facilitate the discussion of the Prevention of Crime Bill then before them. He wished the Government would enter into some definite engagement as to when these proposals would be brought on. Something dark had been thrown out by the youngest Member of Her Majesty's Government, and
    1798
    something still darker had been suggested by the Prime Minister with regard to an Autumn Session. He did not himself object to an Autumn Sitting; certainly, it was preferable to forcing the Resolutions upon a thin House in the third or fourth week in August. He hoped that some assurance would be given by the Government that, if they contemplated the resumption of the consideration of the Procedure Rules this Session, they intended to avoid the public scandal of thrusting those Rules down the throat of the House at a period of the Session when it would be impossible for them to be more than hastily and imperfectly considered. He wished to say a word with regard to the state of Supply. In general there was circulated among the Members of that House a little, but a very useful paper, which showed the state of Supply; but this year, perhaps for economical reasons, the Government had not circulated what would be most likely nearly a blank sheet. He had understood that when the Government asked for the last Vote on Account they had intimated that they would not ask for another without urgent necessity. The fact was that, both as regarded home affairs and our foreign policy, our Government had reached the ne plus ultra of absurdity. It appeared to him that Ministers lived in a fool's paradise, and were engaged in balancing the two halves of their Irish policy, considering it to be of the greatest importance which of those two halves was to be proceeded with first, while every other consideration of either home or foreign affairs was put aside. Instead of either English or Scotch legislation being proceeded with, the House met every evening to witness a fight—which, after all, might be merely a sham one— between the Government and their Irish allies. He was glad that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because the House would be saved from a very tedious discussion on the subject. It had been suggested that the Agricultural Holdings Bills, the Scotch Entail Bill, and the Scotch Endowment Bill should be referred to Grand Committees. It would, however, be necessary to discuss carefully the constitution of any Grand Committee, not only on general grounds, but also because otherwise a claim would be put forward that

    1799
    all Irish. Business should be referred to a Grand Committee which would consist almost entirely of Irish Members, which, would be a most dangerous proceeding-. With regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill, there was a general desire on both sides of the House to see that measure passed into law during the present Session. The only objection that he had to take to the action of the Government with regard to that Bill was that they were putting the cart before the horse. He hoped that it was not too late for them to proceed with their Bill for disfranchising the corrupt boroughs before they dealt with corrupt practices. Before they framed fresh laws dealing with corrupt practices, they ought to know what punishment was to be meted out to those who had violated the present law. It was certainly a very cruel thing that the persons and the boroughs implicated should be hung up Session after Session without their knowing whether the Government was in earnest in dealing with them, or whether the House was not to be made a laughing-stock, as far as its professions of purity were concerned. If the Government were determined to have an Autumn Session, let them toll the House so straightforwardly; but do not let these Rules of Procedure be considered at a late period of the present Session.
    MR. GIVANsaid, he was bound to condemn the tone of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) with reference to the Arrears Bill. Before the release of the Members imprisoned in Kilmainham a requisition, numerously signed by Members on both sides of the House, was presented to the Prime Minister, urging him to deal with the question of arrears; and, under those circumstances, to reiterate, in the tone adopted by the two Members referred to, a charge, which had over and over again been denied, that the action of the Prime Minister was calculated to foster discontent in the minds of the poor farmers of Ireland who awaited the Arrears Bill, and to remove from them the confidence they had in the Government, was unwise. Instead of the Arrears Bill operating as a "no rent" manifesto, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham stated, it was an "all rent" manifesto, because,
    1800
    immediately that it was introduced, many landlords thought proper to proceed against their tenants for the purpose of recovering all the arrears due to them before the Bill became law. He had in his possession bundles of writs which had been served on poor tenants, and when ho looked at the particulars of them he thought it was outrageous that they should be served at all. He had one in which a tenant owed three years' rent. Last year he sold his last cow and thereby paid a year's rent, but was unable to pay more; and yet it was sought to pass judgment on this man, and deprive him of the benefit of the Arrears Bill. He warned the Government that if the Crime Bill was allowed to be put into operation in Ireland unaccompanied by the Arrears Bill, or, at all events, by a prospect of its speedy passing, much, crime would be the result. He urged the Prime Minister to deal, if possible, this year with the pressing questions of the date from which judicial rents were to take effect. At present, hundreds and thousands of tenants were unable to get their claims heard. In all their cases, if the Government did not step in, the judicial rent would only date from the gale day succeeding the decision of the Court.
    MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, he thought it would be admitted that the Arrears Bill was one of the first importance, and that, as such a short debate took place on the second reading, some time ought to be given for its discussion prior to going into Committee. It seemed to him that it was a Bill which proposed to tax the people of this country to pay rents which dishonest tenants in Ireland had failed to pay. An opportunity ought to be given to those who were opposed to it to discuss its principle. He hoped, as regarded the Indian Budget, that it would be brought forward earlier than it was last year. As regarded the Corrupt Practices and the Disfranchisement Bills, they would like some more information. Ho thought it very desirable that the latter Bill should be pushed forward. It was a Bill more urgently required for the punishment of offenders, and involving much less detail, than the former. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MAC IYERseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is absolutely beyond my power to give any undertaking with regard to the Disfranchisement Bill. With regard to the question of the Indian Budget, it is a matter on which no opinion can be pronounced in the present state of things. When the necessity has arisen for the consideration of the question it must be regarded in connection with the convenience of the great body of the House; but it will be impossible to give beforehand any engagement as to the position in which it should stand, and its precedence over every other Bill. As regarded an Autumn Session, that was a matter on which they could not then pronounce any opinion. But then, Sir, I have been asked whether it was intended that the Corrupt Practices Bill should take precedence of the Resolutions on Procedure, or whether the Resolutions on Procedure should take precedence of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Sir, I thought it would be quite distinctly understood that the Corrupt Practices Bill was a measure which we were resolved, so far as it depends upon us, to push forward; while with regard to the Resolutions on Procedure, I have said that the mode of dealing with them must stand for further and future consideration, stating at the same time, in the most positive terms at our command, that they would come within the compass of the present year, so as not to go into the next Session. In our opinion, that subject should be thoroughly and effectually dealt with. With regard to the Vote on Account, I cannot understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. No sort of engagement was given that no further Vote should be asked for. Why, Sir, no person in his senses could give such an engagement, and no such engagement could be given. It is quite evident that the question of the Votes must depend on the demands of the various descriptions of Business at the time before the House of Commons; and what I want to point out is, that every unnecessary debate, and every unnecessary speech, however it may profess to aim at the removal of obstruction, and the bringing forward of this question, is in point of fact a prac-
    1802
    tical contribution to enhancing the difficulties of the position in which we stand, and though each of these speeches may be small in themselves, it is the multiplication of them out of which the whole gigantic difficulty arises.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would not be doing justice to his own convictions if he did not repeat an observation which, on all occasions similar to this, he had annually made since he had the honour of a seat in that House. The Prime Minister was in the same position to-day that every Leader of the House had been in during his observation for the past eight years. He had had to come down at a certain period of the Session, and to acknowledge, in tones of patriotic humiliation, that Parliament was utterly inefficient for the discharge of its great duties, and from all quarters of the House that statement had received support. But what he (Mr. O'Connor Power) marvelled at was the care with which men of all shades of English opinion in that House evaded the one great question which lay at the root of Parliamentary difficulties. The expectation held out to them in relation to certain methods of forwarding the legislation of the country had always been doomed to disappointment. The Government felt that the one thing necessary for restoring the efficiency of Parliament was to pass in their entirety the Rules of Procedure which some months ago were laid on the Table of the House. He ventured to say, and he did not think his prediction would be falsified, that even if these Rules were adopted in their entirety, the Prime Minister would come towards the close of the Session of 1883, and go through the same operation that every Leader of the House of Commons had to go through since the passing of the Reform Bill—namely, to announce the withdrawal of important legislative measures, because Parliament was powerless to deal with them in a manner satisfactory to the country. It was certainly an unpleasant prospect that after the long days they had sat considering public questions, the alternative should be held out to them of sitting into the month of September to discuss Rules of Procedure of doubtful expediency, or of adjourning in the middle of August, and coming back in the middle of October to pass Rules to restore the efficiency of Par-

    1803
    liament, or, in other words, to subject themselves to the operation of that coercion which so many of them had been willing to impose on the people of Ireland, in the vain hope of making themselves more efficient for the transaction of Public Business. They would simply put the House into a strait jacket, and then expect its movements to be more rapid, and the result of its proceedings to be more satisfactory. For the eighth year ho rose in his place as an Irish Member to say that their difficulties in that House, that the obstruction of important legislative Business which the people of England were calling for, that their difficulties in Ireland, which were now striking at the very foundation of society in the country and threatening the stability of public order, were all referable to the one great cause, and that was that the English House of Commons persisted in managing the domestic affairs of the Irish people, although the experience of 82 years protested with all the voice of impartial history that such a practice was likely to be attended with no appreciable success as far as Ireland was concerned, while it must inflict upon the people of England a continuance of the many difficulties which they had hitherto experienced in carrying out this impossible task. He had intended to put one or two Questions to the Prime Minister with reference to the Land Act; but, as the process of interrogation had been carried so far already, he could only expect fragmentary answers, with which he should not feel satisfied. Ho intended, however, to interrogate the right hon. Gentleman, on an early day, with reference to the definition of a town park under the Land Act.
    EARL PERCYsaid, that many of the numerous speeches of which the Prime Minister complained as delaying progress were due to the extraordinary course which had been followed by the Government. Not a single measure mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session had been pursued with anything like a determination to carry it out to a successful issue. The proposal to take precedence for the Arrears Bill, and thus shut out all the rights of private Members, was one as to which they ought to have more full explanation from the Government. As the course proposed was quite unprecedented, ho wished
    1804
    to ask one or two questions — First, whether the Government really meant to carry out their threat and not leave the clôture to another year; secondly, whether a Bill might not be discussed in Committee after having been considered by a Grand Committee—that was the view which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took of the matter, he believed—and, thirdly, whether the Government would really restore the rights of private Members when these two Bills were passed?
    MR. J. HOWARDsaid, he regretted that he was not in his place when the Prime Minister threw out a suggestion that the Agricultural Holdings Bills should be referred to a Committee, and he was surprised to learn that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) did not fall in with the suggestion. It was impossible that any private Member could deal with this great question satisfactorily without a Select Committee. Looking to the diversity of opinion which prevailed both out-of-doors and in that House upon the question, ho thought such a Committee would do great good in guiding public opinion on the matter, and for himself he cordially accepted the suggestion.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the hon. Member misunderstood him; all that he had said was that he wished to guard himself against being supposed to have anything to do with the Bill of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. He hoped his observations would not be misunderstood as to the Prime Minister's suggestion. All ho intended to convey was that, in his opinion, a Committee of the kind suggested by the Prime Minister—namely, a Grand Committee—would probably not substantially facilitate the progress of the measures.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, at the present time, Public Business was in a most unsatisfactory condition. In his opinion, the Indian Budget would be taken this Session later than ever. With regard to the Arrears Bill, he was surprised at the Prime Minister's proposal; it was a weak and unworthy surrender to Obstruction. He also protested against the Prime Minister bringing forward the clôture Resolution at any period of the Session. He thought that "Philip had become sober," and that a good many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends had also become sobered. Most noxious creatures

    1805
    had their stings in their tails; but these Resolutions had their sting in their head. He had a personal interest in the matter, for he had been included by the Secretary of State for India among the four upon the proscribed list.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not wish his previous observations to be misunderstood. The reason why he had not accepted the Prime Minister's suggestion was that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee, which he did not think would be of any real benefit. Though anxious to give consideration to the proposal of the Government as regarded the Arrears Bill, he felt bound, until he knew how far the Amendment would affect it, to oppose the measure. If his hon. Friend pressed his Motion to a division he would support it.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he thought the Government had been guilty of a great waste of time.
    MR. SHELLasked whether the hon. Member was at liberty to address the House, having seconded the Motion for Adjournment?
    MR. SPEAKER: Several hon. Members rose together to second the Motion, and I did not accept the hon. Member for Birkenhead as seconding the Motion.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, the difficulty about late hours of the House, which were so injurious to the health of hon. Members, might be obviated if the House would adopt some other mode of taking the Votes.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.
    MR. MAC IVER: I understand the Question is the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate on the Motion for the giving of precedence to the Arrears Bill.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he should, then, oppose the Motion.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Irish Members were anxious to expedite the proceedings in reference to the Bills before the House as much as possible; and, although they were more anxious for the passage of the Arrears Bill, they certainly were not willing to sell their rights and privileges for £500,000, as they would be doing if they assented to hasten the passage of the Prevention of
    1806
    Crime Bill. Short of doing this, they would be prepared to do their utmost to facilitate the Bill.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 253; Noes 97: Majority 156. —(Div. List, No. 158.)
    Ordered, That the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill have precedence, on every day for which it is set down, of all other Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions, except the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
    (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 19 th June.]
    [FIFTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  PART III.

    GENERAL POWERS.
    Clause 11 (Searches for arms and illegal documents).
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was not upon the Paper, and he would therefore read it to the Committee. He proposed to insert the words in line 11 making it necessary to fill up the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant to search for arms and illegal documents with the names of the suspected persons, the names of the occupiers of the houses, and the hour at which the search was to be made. He hoped the Government would consent to accept the Amendment, because he believed it was strictly in accordance with the principle the Committee had laid down in regard to the Bill. He understood the Bill was to be carried out, as far as possible, in accordance with Constitutional principles. The Act of last year was founded on unconstitutional principles—namely, that an English subject might be arrested on the mere suspicion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and detained without being brought up for trial. This Bill, however, was to be carried out as much as

    1807
    possible in accordance with Constitutional principles; and although trial by jury was taken away by the Bill, it was, to a certain extent, restored by providing another tribunal. It was quite true that an accused person was not to be tried by 12 jurors; but, at the same time, he was to be tried by six Judges, who were practically equivalent to an ordinary jury. In this particular case the accused was to be tried by two stipendiary magistrates, one of whom was to be a lawyer. That was a course which was not unknown to the English law, and, to a certain extent, it was carrying out the law of England. At the same time, if they proposed to carry out the law of England in this way, they ought also to carry it out in accordance with the principles on which that law was established; and, so far as he understood, it had never been the practice in England to issue blank warrants. Such warrants might have been resorted to in times gone by; but so strong was the feeling against them that the House of Commons itself had protested, and the Judges, in the most solemn manner, had decided that the issue of blank warrants was altogether illegal. Instead of permitting the issue of blank warrants in this case, he proposed that the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing a warrant for search, should specify into whose house, and at what hour, the search was to be made. By that means something would be done towards guarding the sanctity of the home. Nothing had been more insisted upon in English history than that an Englishman's house should be his castle. It was to carry out that principle that the Amendment was brought in. He would not say that there were not times and occasions when the Executive of the country might be called upon to violate the sanctity of a man's home. The Criminal Law offered instances when such a necessity arose; but it was the duty of the Government to provide that there should be no abuse of the power. If the Committee refused this Amendment, they would leave open to the Government a very wide field of abuse. It must be borne in mind that the Bill might not always be carried out under the guidance of Lord Spencer, a Nobleman whom they all respected, or of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man anxious to conduct the government of that country, as far
    1808
    as he was concerned, fairly and properly. He thought the Committee ought not to deprive the people of Ireland of their Constitutional rights without the strongest necessity being shown, and ample power being given, to restrain the exercise of the power of the Executive in cases where the public safety was not in danger. He trusted that the Government would insert this Amendment in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 11, to insert after the word "warrant," the words "specifying the name or names of such inspectors, the house or houses, with the name or names of the occupiers thereof, where such search is to he made, together with the day and hours of the day or night on which, and within which, such search is to be made."—(Mr. T. C. Thompson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would forgive him if he declined to enter into the general discussion which ho had raised. The object of the clause was distinct from that which was inserted in the Act of 1870. Its object was to give to certain persons—the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, for the time being, acting in any Constabulary district— the power of search for, and seizing, in any proclaimed district, or any part thereof, specified in the warrant, arms, ammunition, paper, documents, instruments, or articles suspected to be used, or intended to be used, in connection with any secret society, or secret association, for criminal purposes. It was not the general power to search for arms, but only a specific power to search for arms in connection with secret societies and criminal associations. "What the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) asked was this—that every warrant should be filled up with the names of the suspected persons, of the occupier of the house, and the hour at which the search was to be made. How could the Lord Lieutenant, in issuing his warrant, know the particular houses in which the documents or arms proposed to be searched for were secreted? [Derisive cheers from the Irish Members.] He hoped hon. Members would not misunderstand the object of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: A blank warrant.] It was nothing of the kind.

    1809
    Its only object was to give power to search any districts which were suspected for arms and other things, and it was desirable that that power should be exercised wherever such articles could be found. It was to protect a district from connection with the possession of unlawful arms, and with criminal associations, that the clause was proposed to be inserted in the Bill. This was an Amendment to the entire clause, and not to a particular part of it. Substantially the first requirement would be fulfilled; but it would be impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to specify the names of the occupiers of the houses. It would be impossible, also, that the Lord Lieutenant could give directions as to what time the search should be made. It might be reasonable, in the opinion of some hon. Members, to strike out the clause altogether, if they were of opinion that it was not desirable to detect these criminal purposes; but it would be ridiculous to retain it and to accept the proposed Amendment.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, that the only object of the Amendment was to try to get the Government to confine the warrants to places or persons who were reasonably suspected; but, as the clause now stood, the warrant would be as described by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), a perfectly blank warrant, under which the police could search the house of any person in a particular county, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent an abuse of the powers conferred by the clause upon the police.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had accurately described the Amendment as an objection to the entire clause. It raised a question of very considerable importance—namely, whether the right of search by general warrant should be exercised in Ireland. All the principles of liberty were outraged by the Bill. By what means was this clause to be carried out? It was to be enforced by the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Constabulary. If the right were limited to the County Inspectors they were only some 30 in number, and they were mostly men of experience and discretion, and he should not object to the clause if it were so limited; but the Sub-Inspectors numbered some hundreds,
    1810
    many of them being mere boys, and a very few were men of experience in the Service. They comprised among them such men as Sub-Inspector Smith and Sub-Inspector Ball, of Ballina notoriety, and Sub-Inspector Webb.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was discussing a question which would arise upon the next Amendment, and not upon the Amendment then before the Committee.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would at once close his arguments upon that point. The search warrant was to be a general warrant to remain in force for three months, and during all that time this general warrant might be made use of as an instrument of torture, and for the purpose of private revenge. The Sub-Inspectors were not generally on very good terms with the inhabitants, and in many parts of the country there were strong feelings of resentment and private pique entertained by them against the people. Was it necessary, for the purpose of discovering concealed arms, that a subordinate officer of the police should have in his possession a document for three months which would enable him to enter the house of any person, and conduct a search which would be regarded by the Irish people as an insulting search? The Government had referred to no figures in regard to this clause. They had given no figures with reference to the exercise of the power of search by night under the previous Act. They had abstained from giving the figures as to the number of strangers who had been arrested; but he thought it was most desirable, before the Committee were called upon to accept the clause, that some statistics should be set forth. They wanted to know whether this was a well-tried and proved weapon for detecting crime. A similar power existed in the Act of 1870, and he should like to know what the effect of the exercise of that power had been? How was the right exercised? How many searches were carried out, and what were the results? The Committee ought to be made acquainted with the total number of searches, and the total number of cases which had justified them. His contention was that this right to search had proved altogether inoperative in Ireland, and that arms and papers of the description specified were not generally concealed, and that,

    1811
    if they were concealed, they were not concealed in dwelling-houses, or in places likely to be searched. If the police had a power of divination, this general right of search for the existence of secret societies might be of value, and, perhaps, in some of the Irish bogs they might discover something; but, not possessing that attribute, all this was a matter "of sound and fury signifying nothing." It could have no other effect than to annoy and harass innocent people. He was glad the Amendment had been moved by an English Member, because he hoped that that fact would insure it greater attention from English Members generally than if it had been moved by a Member representing an Irish constituency. Before the Government insisted upon retaining the clause, he called upon them to show the necessity for it, and to prove that the exercise of similar power in past times had led to the slightest result.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had no doubt this was a very stringent clause, and was not astonished that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), entertaining the views he did, took exception to it. But, in the state of things in Ireland, criminals obtained such an advantage over the law that it was absolutely necessary to give the Government exceptional power for enforcing the law. Secret crime in Ireland had reached such an extent as to fully warrant the Government in asking for a power of search; but he thought the policeman making the search should be bound to make some record of the grounds upon which he made it, otherwise this clause might be liable to be abused.
    MR. HEALYsaid, no clause of exceptional severity against the Irish people had ever been introduced into the House that some hon. Member was not ready to declare he saw the full necessity of. That was the raison d'être, in the view of the Government, for the Bill. Personally, he could not see that this provision was more necessary than any other portion of the Bill. Therefore, when he heard an hon. Member talk of the necessity of the Bill, he was inclined to think that that argument was growing somewhat stale. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was not aware that the Government already possessed in Ireland very exten-
    1812
    sive powers of search between sunrise and sunset. They had power to do what they liked in that respect. He wished to know if they proposed to repeal the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act? What was the present demand of the Government? Did they suppose that when the sun set a man removed from a bog, or any other hiding-place, his blunderbuss, and brought it into his own house for the purpose of taking it to bed with him? The Government had already the same power of searching a house in the day time as they now asked for, and the same power of searching at night. People often read in romantic sketches of arms being taken out of the bog, or out of the graveyard; but the only object for removing them in a case like this would be to bring them to the fireside to air. Nothing could be more absurd, and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) must be aware that the Government possessed all the powers of search they now asked for. The provision contained in the Peace Preservation Act lasted for five years, and the Government only asked for this for three. Why should they not propose it for six years, and spare themselves from any further extra trouble? It was astonishing how the Government always presumed on the ignorance of hon. Members in regard to anything connected with Ireland. The Act to which he had referred was called the Peace Preservation Act; but what peace it had preserved had always been an enigma to him. Most Members of the House of Commons spent their time gloriously downstairs, or anywhere except upon the floor of the House; and, as the English newspapers were in a conspiracy to burke the speeches of Irish Members, he was not astonished that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy should be ignorant of the existing state of things, and that the Irish Members should be compelled to repeat the arguments they had used over and over again upon this matter. He did not suppose, however, that they would produce very much effect or influence upon the Government; but whether that was due to a want of intelligence on the part of the Government or upon the part of Irish Members he would not pronounce an opinion. The provision of the Act of last year was that where the warrant was addressed to a Sub-Inspector it must be addressed to a

    1813
    particular individual, and must be used within 10 days. As the Bill was brought in a blank was left in the warrant, so that the Sub-Inspector might use it at any time, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill consented to limit the period to 10 days. If the arguments, then, used were sufficient to shorten the duration of the warrant from all eternity to 10 days, he did not see why the Government should not now consent to shorten the period in this instance. Why should a Sub-Inspector have three months for harassing an entire district? No doubt the Sub-Inspectors of Ireland were treated as if they were the sweetness and light of the country, and he had not the smallest desire to object to that view; indeed, he had very little doubt that if Mr. Clifford Lloyd were closely examined, it would be found that he possessed angel's wings floating out behind. Therefore, it was too much to ask that an entire district should not be given over to the ransacking of an Inspector at any hour of the day or night. In the last Bill the Government inserted a provision that arms should be paid for if they were given up, and they got more arms in consequence of that provision than from any other power conferred by the Act. They had instituted searches of the most stringent and even disgraceful character. They had pulled down the hay-stacks of the unfortunate peasants and scattered them to the winds, and let rain come down upon them; but not one stand of arms, nor one pound of gunpowder, nor one paper of percussion caps had they succeeded in discovering. He, therefore, claimed that under this Bill something in the nature of compensation should be given for injuries that might be inflicted in carrying out an abortive search.
    THE CHAIRMANwished to point out to the hon. Member that he was scarcely speaking to the Amendment before the Committee, but to the effect of the clause generally.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was simply pointing out that a better way of obtaining arms and ammunition than the Government proposed would be found in providing compensation for the giving up of arms; but he would not continue in that strain if the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that he was out of Order. What he wished to say was,
    1814
    that in future these general warrants would be as ineffectual as they had been in the past. They had hitherto been used for the purpose of giving the people living in the district as much trouble as possible. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was known to be a humane man. He (Mr. Healy) had no authority to speak for hon. Members on that side of the House; but, as far as he was personally concerned, he was prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had afforded the greatest amount of satisfaction in his new Office. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would very greatly regret that cases should be brought under his notice such as those which were constantly referred to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—cases in which houses had been burst open by the Sub-Inspectors, women pulled out of their beds, and obliged to dress themselves in the presence of five or six policemen, and then turned out of the room while the constables ransacked the premises. He could not understand why the resources of civilization should not have been kept back so as to enable those unfortunate women to dress, unless there was some fear that they might personally secrete something in the few moments the police might be kept out of the room. The Act was carried out in such an extremely objectionable manner, that in very numerous instances these poor women, after being expelled from their beds, were compelled to dress themselves in the presence of four or five constables. When such things occurred in a district, it was not a matter of surprise that they should excite a feeling of passion and hatred. It was this system of searching that had provoked reprisals in Ireland; and he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would be willing to put into the Bill a Compensation Clause, such as that as was put in the last Bill, to compensate all persons who voluntarily surrendered the arms they possessed? At present the state of the case was this. A man's bed might be ripped up, the boards of his dwelling-house pulled to pieces, his mantelpiece knocked down, his hay-rick scattered to the winds, and other damage done; and what he wanted to know was, whether in such a case, the search having failed to discover concealed arms or ammunition, the owner of the property

    1815
    who had sustained injury would be compensated?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out to the hon. Member that he was speaking upon the general clause, and not upon the Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, unfortunately, these things followed from an unrestricted right of search. He was only pointing out one of the consequences of passing this clause, and if he was not to argue in this way there was no use in his arguing at all. Therefore, he would resume his seat.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, no matter had given so much dissatisfaction in connection with previous Coercion Acts as the exercise of this right of search. If it could be shown that it was of advantage, and that there was an absolute necessity for it, ho should have nothing to say; but he did not think that in this case the Government had made out a case sufficient to warrant the Committee in assenting to this very objectionable provision. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated, better than he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was able to do, the objections which wore raised to the exercise of this power in Ireland, and he would ask the Government if it was worth while to increase the ill-feeling of the people against their measures by adopting so arbitrary a provision? During the late Winter Assizes in Ireland, they had had some experience of the manner in which arms could be easily got away and put away in Ireland. The concealment of arms was, in point of fact, reduced to a system. A man did not take home a double-barrelled gun and hide it in his house; but men, many of whom had been formerly in Her Majesty's Service, were employed under "Moonlight" arrangements to convert them into "Moonlight" arms; and instead of having a firearm hidden away in its integrity, these men, who possessed a technical knowledge, took them to pieces, and a lock would be disposed of in one place, a barrel in another, and a stock in another. He, therefore, failed to see what advantage the Government would derive from this clause; and it would, undoubtedly, tend to inflame the bad feeling and the bad passions of the people against the Government. He had already expressed his opinion as to the desirability of passing some such measure as
    1816
    the present; but, at the same time, he felt that the Government, in asking for this clause, were asking for one that was quite unnecessary, and were asking for a power which would excite the bitterest feeling of hostility against themselves in Ireland.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he concurred with the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), that this clause would be regarded as a very odious one in Ireland; and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would be a very useful one indeed in restricting this right of search and placing it under some sort of rule. He might give an example as to how the right already existing had been used under the old Coercion Act. A tenant of his complained that his house had been searched. The tenant said he did not complain of the police searching it, provided they found anything in it; but he did complain that they held the power of searching it again and again, and asked him (Colonel Nolan) to interfere. He called the attention of the late Conservative Chief Secretary to the matter; and the argument he used was that, although something might be found if the search were conducted in the course of six months, it was not likely that anything would be discovered upon premises which were searched once a-week. In this particular instance the search was stopped. He was afraid that if the clause were passed as it now stood, and warrants were issued in the general way, the officer entrusted with the execution of them might employ the right of search as a means of molestation against an individual in regard to whom he had some private pique. If the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr T. C. Thompson) was introduced, the Lord Lieutenant would only grant a warrant when a necessity for it was shown, and there would be an essential control over the exercise of it, and there would be not nearly so much chance of the right being abused.
    MR. GILLsaid, he strongly supported the Amendment. There was one subject to which no hon. Member had at present alluded. When this right of searching for arms and other matters was enforced in Ireland, it had always been known that that was the time in

    1817
    which spies and informers had been enabled to carry on with the greatest success their machinations. His own opinion was that the exact hour of the search should be named in the warrant; if not, it would give to this class of spies and informers in Ireland the opportunity of concealing arms or other things about the house of a man, and of then going to the Sub-Inspector and saying—"Such and such a man is concealing arms in a haystack, or in a barn, or in a corner of his house, and if you go at once you will discover them." A Sub-Inspector, armed with this terrible power, would go at once, and naturally would discover these things, the result of which would be that the unfortunate victim, although thoroughly innocent, would be subjected to severe punishment; while the spy, or the man who bore malice against the unfortunate victim, would remain unharmed, and even obtain a reward for his treachery. If the clause were safeguarded by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) this could scarely happen, because it would be necessary for the Sub-Inspector to obtain the insertion in the warrant of a particular hour for the search; and that might be made the means, to a large extent, of baffling a common informer who wished to carry out his own scheme of treachery. For that reason, if for no other, bethought the Amendment ought to be insisted upon.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought that before the Attorney General committed the Government to the clause he should have endeavoured to show that the already extensive powers which were given under the Act of 1881 had failed, and, if so, in what respect they had failed. As had already been pointed out, searches of a stringent character had been made under that Bill; and in some cases precautions of such an extraordinary character had been taken that it was utterly and completely impossible that any arms, if concealed in the houses which were searched, could have escaped discovery. The power of search had been exercised under the most favourable conditions; but, nevertheless, the Government had failed in the most signal manner to obtain the possession of concealed arms. What did that prove? That they had searched the houses of a good many people, and in almost the whole of them no arms were found at
    1818
    all. As had been pointed out, a Compensation Clause was placed in the last Bill for arms that were given up, and the result was that a large number of arms was surrendered under that clause, whereas scarcely any were discovered where the right of search was exercised. The Attorney General said that the present clause gave no general power to search at all, but only to search for particular arms and documents, &c, connected with secret associations. He wished to see how that would work. A district would be proclaimed, the Lord Lieutenant would send his warrant down to the Sub-Inspector of the district; and under that warrant the Sub-Inspector would be able to search every house in the county, not merely for arms, but for any documents which might be used in connection with criminal associations. But how was he to discover whether any letters or documents he came across did not come under the category unless he read every document that might be found in the man's house? Therefore, it was manifest that this a most unlimited power given to the police, which was to last for three months, and the right of search to be repeated day after day, at any hour of the day or night. The effect would be that every farmer in a proclaimed district would be completely at the mercy of the Police Inspector. The hon. Member for West-meath (Mr. Gill) had pointed out another important matter — namely, that very frequently in Ireland, when laws of this character were brought into operation, a man possessing a feeling of hostility to his neighbour placed in the thatch of his neighbour's house something which would bring him under the provisions of the Act, and then communicate it to the police. The consequence had been that, on more than one occasion, an innocent man had been sent to gaol for concealing arms, the existence of which he was in entire ignorance. Supposing, under this clause, a Constabulary officer received a general warrant, and an anonymous letter was forwarded to him, stating that in a particular house firearms were concealed, he would be bound, even though he did not know from whom the anonymous letter came, to act upon it, and search for the arms and documents pointed out. It would, therefore, be in the power of any man who chose to conceal arms in the thatch of a neighbour's house, or in the hay-stacks of his hay-

    1819
    yard, to bring the whole force of the law down upon him, and to cause an innocent man to be sent to gaol for three months under the Arms Act. He, therefore, thought it was absolutely necessary to insist on the warrant specifying the house that was to be searched, so as to afford some guarantee that before a search was made there was some reasonable ground for suspecting that arms were concealed.
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 31; Noes 61: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 159.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 11, after the word "time," insert "on information on oath and in writing being laid before him by some creditable person."'—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONrose to speak.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member had risen too late, the Question had been put to the Committee, and he thought the Noes had it. ["No, no!"]
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order. Several Amendments had been handed in to the Clerk at the Table just before the rising of the House. These Amendments had been distributed amongst Members, but not in order, and the consequence of that had been that he had not been prepared to move his Amendment at the proper moment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point was that the last Amendment on which the Committee divided was moved after the word "warrant," and the Amendment of the hon. Member was after the word "time," which had been passed by the Committee. It was extremely difficult for the Chairman or the Clerks at the Table to deal with a large number of Amendments simultaneously handed in. He had, however, discovered that the Amendment of the hon. Member could not be put for the reason stated.
    MR. HEALYasked, with regard to the Amendments handed in to the Clerk at the Table, when hon. Members would have an opportunity of moving them? Ho had himself handed in several Amendments just before 7 o'clock, and it was then a quarter-past 9.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had pointed out that the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had carried the Committee down to the word "warrant." The hon. Member had now moved an Amendment after the word "time," which was not then before the Committee, and it could not, therefore, be put. He, therefore, called upon the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to proceed with the next Amendment.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANrose to Order.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point of Order had been already settled.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo.
    MR. HEALYrose to Order. Was not a Motion to report Progress before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo before Progress was moved.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, although he believed the Lord Lieutenant took the advice of the Privy Council with reference to all warrants, yet he was anxious that the form of the warrant should be prescribed. The Amendment which he was about to move was one intended to carry out the Act; and, therefore, he presumed that the Government would not object to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "warrant," insert "in the prescribed form."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had no objection to those words.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo had been put, the hon. Member for Dungarvan could put his question to Order.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had risen to a point of Order, before any other Member had risen, on the ordinary conduct of the Committee. Although the hon. Member for Sligo had been called, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had risen first. The question he wished to ask was, whether his Motion for Progress did not justly take precedence of the ordinary conduct of the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had called on the hon. Member for Sligo, and saw him rise; he was, therefore, in possession of the Committee at the time the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) moved to report Progress.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if he could now move the Amendment, which the Chairman had been unable to put to the Committee, with regard to information on oath and in writing being laid before the Lord Lieutenant?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could now move.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the object of his Amendment was to guard, as far as possible, the use of the power contained in this clause, and to limit it to cases where the Lord Lieutenant had proper information before him for the purpose of taking this extreme action.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 11, after the word "form," insert "on information on oath and in writing being laid before him by some creditable person."— (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was unable to accept this Amendment. He wished, however, with the indulgence of the Committee, to state the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to an important point in the clause. He was aware that the present was not the stage of the Bill at which the statement should be made, yet he desired to make it at that stage, because it might affect the discussion upon the remaining portion of the clause. It had been thought necessary to ask for power for making searches in given districts, and without limiting them to any particular hours. But the Government were aware that there was the keenest feeling with regard to this clause as to search by night; and, although they were not prepared to give it up, they were prepared to limit it in such a manner as would
    1822
    insure that there should be no search at night except where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, and to move an Amendment to this effect later on.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought that the Prime Minister had made a most reasonable concession. He could quite understand the Prime Minister taking the power of search in the case of a secret society which was holding a meeting. Although, of course, he could not support this Act, still he was prepared to admit that if such an Act had to be passed it was perfectly fair that the power reserved by the Prime Minister should be taken. He repeated that this was a most important concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he quite agreed that the concession of the Prime Minister was a most important one, and begged to offer the right hon. Gentleman his sincere thanks. Still, there was one question which he desired to put. Supposing that the police proceeded to make a search, having entered the place, would the police be enabled to withdraw if there were no meeting sitting?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that would, no doubt, be the case.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought it necessary to refer to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), which sought to impose on the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of receiving information on oath before he granted the warrant of search. The Prime Minister said it was intended that this right of search should not be exercised in the night-time unless there was reasonable suspicion that a treasonable meeting was being held. He (Mr. Leamy) asked on whose determination was that search to be made? Were the Committee to understand that a general warrant would be issued to an Inspector of Constabulary in the district, telling him that he was not to make this search in the night-time, unless he had some reason to believe that a treasonable meeting was being held in a certain house, and that treasonable documents or arms would be found there? He did not underrate the concession of the Prime Minister; but he felt it his duty to ask what guarantee Irish Members had that a Sub-Inspector, armed with a warrant of search, would

    1823
    not proceed to search for documents and other things, after he found that there was no treasonable meeting being held? Surely there should be some investigation before a warrant was issued, because a policeman might be told by some irresponsible person that a treasonable meeting was being held, and upon that information he would be obliged to go to the place and make a search. Therefore, although he quite understood the spirit in which the Prime Minister had proposed the alteration, he failed to see, unless there were some explicit words put into the Bill to limit the power of Sub-Inspectors to make searches, that the concession would not be rendered valueless.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to point out that the clause was drawn for the purpose of enabling Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary to make search for arms and illegal documents. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would introduce an Amendment later on into the clause which would prevent search by night, except where there was reason to suspect that a meeting was being held of a secret society or illegal society in the house or about the premises in which the search was being made. But the question he had to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this— For what purpose was the search to be made? Was it to be made under these circumstances—that was to say where there was reasonable suspicion that a secret society was holding a meeting, search was to be made for the purpose of discovering arms or illegal documents for the purpose specified in the clause? Or was it to be made for the purpose of discovering the meeting? In the latter case, he would respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that the most convenient course would he to cut out the power of search by night as regarded arms and illegal documents, and bring up a new clause dealing with the right of entry—he said entry, because it was not a correct definition to call it right of search—at night for the purpose of discovering whether there was an illegal meeting being held or not. He repeated that the clause only referred to search for the purpose of discovering arms and illegal documents; and he feared that if the power of search were left expressly stated in the clause, it would be used by the police for all manner of searches en-
    1824
    tirely apart from the question whether illegal documents or arms were to be found or not.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was competent to speak of the view taken of this clause by the Lord Lieutenant, who had arrived at his conclusion after careful consultation with persons of authority in the disturbed districts. The Lord Lieutenant, under that advice, came to the conclusion that the power to search for arms and documents at night was an unnecessary element in a Bill of this kind. The Lord Lieutenant, however, held strongly to the necessity of having the power of entering premises where it was supposed that men were engaged in concocting crime. The Government had not yet obtained from the Lord Lieutenant the exact suggestion as to the sub-section which they would propose for the purpose of arming themselves with this power. But that sub-section the Government proposed to put in on the Report, and they would lay great stress on having it in the clearest form possible. Acting on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, they were willing that there should be no night search for arms, documents, or other matters, except upon the condition stated by the Prime Minister.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he understood, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that the Government proposed to leave in the clause words giving power to the police to make search in the manner described in the daytime, and that the Government would bring up a sub-section on Report, giving the police power with regard to entering premises at night for the purpose of detecting illegal meetings.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.
    MR. MARUMbegged to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the concession he had made; but he had announced his intention, previous to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to move a Proviso to this clause, to the effect that no entry or search should be made in any church or place of worship, monastery, nunnery, or conventual establishment in Ireland, except in the presence of a magistrate. It was now unnecessary; but he would throw out to the Government whether the right of search could not be modified by such a right of sanctuary as was

    1825
    prevalent previous to the Reformation? The Committee would readily understand the feeling which existed amongst Irish Roman Catholics; and he thought the reservation which they had proposed to ask for was one which ought to be adopted for the purpose of satisfying the just susceptibilities of his countrymen, who would certainly view it with gratitude.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he agreed with the general spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Marum). Still, he thought, on a question of violation of domestic privacy, even a policeman would draw a distinction between the laity and the clerical world. If, however, the police made a mistake in the case of monasteries and other institutions, the Government would, of course, have to deal with the enormous and extreme unpopularity which would result there from. He confessed he should be sorry to see an exception of that kind in so many words introduced into the Bill. He had every reason to express a hope that the Prime Minister, who had met this difficulty in such a broad and statesmanlike spirit, would take into consideration the precautions impressed on the Government by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy)—namely, that there should be some protection against the police, on the plea of searching for illegal meetings, making use of the plea to break into houses during the night-time. He did not know whether the Government were prepared to introduce words to bring about that desirable result. Probably the only check to this over-zeal on the part of policemen was to be found in the strict supervision of their superiors, and he thought the police authorities ought to take care to inform the police that where they made use of the power of search in an undue manner they would incur the displeasure of their superiors. He might add that though the limitation of search for illegal meetings was a most valuable one with regard to the privacy of Irish householders, and one which, at the same time, did not interfere with the just powers and rights of the Government to deal with crime, yet he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not take too many precautions in guarding against his subordinates mistaking mere friendly meetings for meetings of secret societies, and treating
    1826
    them accordingly, unless something like very reasonable suspicion was entertained. He would not suggest the addition to the clause of any particular words; but he trusted that, in the instructions given to the police, great care would be taken on this point, because, if uncontrolled power of search were given to every policeman, all the aggravation and arrogance would be caused to the people, under cover of search for illegal societies at night, which the Government were desirous to save them from.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to apologize if he had led the Committee into anything like a discussion upon the alteration which the Government intended to make with regard to the right of search for arms and documents at night. He had endeavoured to make it clear that his announcement was made for the convenience of the Committee in dealing with the remaining portion of the clause. One word more. It had been said that reasonable suspicion was a thing which might be abused. But the same could be said of the word "suspected" in the first part of the clause as it then stood. Of course, the meaning of the Proviso intended to be inserted was that, although the police would be allowed to search only in case there was reasonable suspicion of a meeting of an illegal society being held, yet, having entered upon their search, it would, of course, be their duty to obtain anything in the nature of evidence with regard to the meeting which they might have been informed was going on.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, although, considerable interest had naturally arisen from the statement of the Prime Minister, he must remind the Committee that there was a large number of Amendments to the clause, which it would be difficult to deal with unless hon. Members proceeded with their arguments upon the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he agreed with the desirability of not entering into a discussion upon the statement of the Prime Minister at that moment; but, at the same time, he thought it right to endeavour to obtain as much information as he could without discussing the intended Amendment. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police, having entered a house and found no illegal meeting was to be held, would proceed with their search for

    1827
    arms and documents, or whether they would make only such search as would be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining that no illegal meeting was being held?
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he understood that there would be an opportunity for any Member, who did not wish at that moment to interrupt the course of Business, to express any objection which he might have to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Certainly, before the clause was put, he should like to make some observations upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he wished also to express his thanks for the concession made by the Prime Minister. He trusted he should not be anticipating the discussion on a subsequent Amendment by expressing the hope that the Government would recognize the importance of making a further concession in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum).
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that it was imperative that the Amendments on the Paper should now be proceeded with.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he proposed to omit, in line 11, the words "and sub-inspectors." Although the two Amendments standing in his name were very close together in point of time, yet they referred to a very different state of circumstances. In submitting to the Committee his last Amendment, he was attempting to bring in a clause which would insure to a free people the power to prevent their homes being entered, and to prevent any assault being made on their liberty, except by warrants definite and clear in their nature. But in the Amendment he was about to move, he dealt with the interests of persons subject to a law which rendered them no longer a free people. He believed hon. Members would be alive to the fact that it was more difficult to govern a people by despotism than it was to govern them on the principles of freedom. In the one case you had the assistance of every inhabitant of the country in preserving
    1828
    the peace and order of society, whereas, in the second case, you were dealing with people more or less your foes. Consequently, if peace was to be preserved, those who were practically despots must take care to do nothing to irritate what, perhaps, he might call the heart-broken people of Ireland. Nothing had tended more in past time to break down despotism than irritation. He need scarcely refer to the history of this country, which showed that at one time the Monarchy was almost broken down by the Act of a Minister—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that he was travelling from the question before the Committee.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, his remarks were intended to support his Motion to eliminate the words "sub-inspectors" from the clause. He was arguing that under a despotism irritation was dangerous, because by acts of carelessness a Government which it was desired to preserve might be overthrown. Since the passing of the Act of last year, there had been a most remarkable increase of terrible crime in Ireland. Many reasons had been assigned for this increase, but he was inclined to think it had been caused by depriving the people of Ireland of that interest in their own concerns which belonged to every people. Having taken away from them that interest, having found a great increase not only in ordinary but in fearful crime, he wished that, as far as possible, fresh causes of irritation should be removed, and that Her Majesty's Government should take care in passing this Bill to make it work, if possible, smoothly. He, therefore, proposed to leave out that cause of irritation which arose from the employment, in searches for arms and documents, of sub-officials —people who were always willing to assume an authority which did not belong to them. The subject to which he asked the attention of the Committee was one of considerable importance. The whole of Europe, so to speak, was gazing upon that Committee, wondering at the events which had taken place in Ireland, and at the legislation proposed to deal with them; and he contended that it was a matter of necessity, in passing this Act, that all causes of irritation of the kind he had alluded to should be removed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "inspectors," leave out "and sub-inspectors."—(Mr. T. G. Thompson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was afraid that if the eyes of Europe were gazing upon the Committee, Europe would have discovered that the hon. Member for Durham's idea of a Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was not a very clear one. A Sub-Inspector of Constabulary was, in point of education, very much like a subaltern officer; and, as far as his experience went, a subaltern of high order. The clause before the Committee, he need hardly point out, was one of extreme importance. It was not put in for the sake of appearance only, but in order that it might work; and, that being so, it was necessary that there should be a sufficient number of people to work it. It was a fact that there was only one Inspector in each county, and he might be at that time 30 or 40 miles away from the spot at which his services might be required; whereas in the case of Sub-Inspectors, there were 10 to 12 in each county, and if the clause was to work effectively he could not imagine a body of men more fitted to discharge the delicate duties which the clause imposed. The hon. Member for Durham had made an appeal to the Government not to pass another Act such as the Arms Act of last year, because since the time it came into operation an increase of crime had resulted. Her Majesty's Government, however, believed that in order to diminish crime the best way was carefully to study it and to see by what full, careful, and minute provisions this diminution could be effected. There were clauses in the Arms Act of last year which were found to be inefficient; but in this Bill the Government had introduced provisions which they believed would have the effect of putting down crime, although those provisions were milder in their character. For the reasons he had given he was unable to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham; and, in concluding his observations, he took an opportunity of expressing his belief that the Sub Inspectors of the Irish Constabulary were a body of
    1830
    men thoroughly to be trusted in this matter.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to detract from the character of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary, so far as their education was concerned; but the right hon. Gentleman must have paid very little attention to the history of Ireland during the last year, or he would have known that among that body many of it members had behaved in a way that did not recommend itself to his Predecessor in Office. The Sub-Inspectors to whom he referred were associated with deeds of a very questionable character, and it seemed almost impossible that the right hon. Gentleman could wish them to have anything to do with the carrying out of another Coercion Act. It was true that there was only one Inspector in each county; but the Government were asking to interfere with the peace, the privacy, and, to some extent, with the happiness of every home in Ireland, and, therefore, he thought he was not asking too much that the highest police authority in the district should alone be intrusted with the duty of carrying out this very objectionable clause.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the concession of the Prime Minister was of so substantial a character that, on the supposition that it would be carried out bonâ fide, he believed there was now no difference between Irish Members and the Government with regard to this clause, except upon small matters of detail. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the Government had already the power for five years to search for arms in houses in Ireland between sunrise and sunset. Now, he understood the Prime Minister was only prepared to ask that where the police had information of an illegal meeting taking place, they should have the power of search at night. If that were so, he thought Irish Members would be prepared to grant this clause as a whole. At any rate, for his part, he was prepared to do so, and to move no more Amendments to the clause if the Prime Minister was prepared to carry out the words he had used. As he understood it, all the Government asked in this clause was that the police should have the power to search for arms and illegal documents— not to pull down chimney-pieces, rip up floors, or turn decent women out of their

    1831
    beds, and compel them to dress themselves in the presence of constables. If it were understood that the police, on finding that no illegal meeting was being held, should immediately retire, then lie would vote for the Government on every Amendment that was proposed to this clause. He again thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, which was one worthy of his character and of the position he held in that House.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was most reluctant again to intervene in this discussion, because he felt so much the force of the rule laid down from the Chair. But the hon. Member for Wexford had addressed to the Government an intimation of his intention, on certain conditions, to support the Government in reference to Amendments which might be proposed to this clause. If ho understood the words of the hon. Member rightly, he believed the Government were prepared to act as he had described. He could not say more than that at the present moment; but there was one remark which he felt bound to make. The hon. Member for Wexford and other hon. Members, in the course of their observations, had given him the credit of proposing this alteration; but he was bound to say that that credit was entirely due to his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had looked into this matter with the sincere desire that the Government should ask that which was necessary, and only necessary. It was the Lord Lieutenant himself to whom the credit of this concession was due.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was fully sensible of the importance of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had scarcely expressed the views of Irish Members upon this subject. His hon. Friend had said that the Government, by the Arms Act of last year, were entitled to search for arms for a period of five years in any house in Ireland; but he must point out that under this clause they would be entitled to search not only for arms, but for papers and documents. For his own part, he thought it right and proper to proceed with the discussion of the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment was of extreme importance, and it was one
    1832
    which the Government should be willing to accept. Of course, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was perfectly accurate in saying that there was only one Chief Inspector in the county; but it must be remembered that the search contemplated by this clause was one of very great delicacy, and he thought the Government ought to concede the point that the search should be conducted by the highest police-officer in the county, whose functions could not be said to be very elaborate, and whose time, in consequence, might very well be spared. It must be remembered that these Sub-Inspectors were, as a rule, young men, and that some of them had given instances of great rashness of temper. He would refer to the case of Sub-Inspector Ball, who, it was well known, had exasperated the feelings of the people of Ireland to a considerable degree. Now, he thought that the powers of the clause should not be committed to a body which contained men of the character he had referred to. Although he felt the value of the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to night-searches, he believed that the employment of Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary was not the best arrangement that could be made, and that it might, on occasion, prove to be dangerous. If the Government did not think the County Inspectors sufficiently numerous to carry out the object of the clause, he asked whether they would arrange for the senior Sub-Inspectors to be placed in command of a body of officers, many of whom were young men?
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that, in view of the fact that the Government were empowered to make search for arms under the Arms Act, he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would not get rid altogether of the search for documents? He objected to the words "sub-inspectors," not on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), but simply because he desired that the Lord Lieutenant should, as far as possible, abandon this general warrant of search. He regarded it as a most infamous thing that, after the long connection which had existed between England and Ireland, a general warrant of search should be conferred upon any man in Ireland; and, if the Government had decided that it should be given, he should feel it his duty to support the

    1833
    Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), because it might, to some extent, limit the objectionable character of this clause.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would be bound to vote with his hon. Friends, although he thought, after the substantial concession made by the Prime Minister, the Amendment might very fairly be withdrawn. He himself had an Amendment to the clause, but he should certainly withdraw it. He should vote with his Party, but he thought they had got more concessions on this clause than on any other. Ho was of opinion that on this question they ought to give the Government as little trouble as possible.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Government could not do better than make a few more concessions, and then he had no doubt the Bill would pass through the House with extreme rapidity. The point before them was the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), and the object of that Amendment was to limit the power of arbitrary search. He had no doubt the Irish Constabulary were a very efficient body of men; but it was now attempted by the Government to vest them with most unreasonable powers, for they could enter, under this Act, any man's house at their will and pleasure. He held that that was a power that Englishmen would resent, and that which the Irish people were justified in resenting. For all political purposes the Government had sufficient power, without this particular power of arbitrary search; and he was certain that this clause, as it stood, would create the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the country. If there was one clause in former Coercion Acts which more exasperated the people than any other, it was a clause similar to this. If his hon. Friend went to a division he should certainly vote with him, for they were only asking for a limitation of action which would be of no service, and might be a great detriment.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that, from his knowledge of the Constabulary, it would be impossible to omit the word "sub-inspector." The object was to place on responsible officers the execution of these warrants, and, if he remembered rightly, in no former Bill of this character was the word "inspector" or
    1834
    "sub-inspector" omitted. These words were introduced as a safeguard to insure that the execution of these warrants would not be placed in the hands of the ordinary policeman. He held that when a warrant reached the hands of the County Inspector, he would choose the right man to carry out the delicate work; and he thought that if his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) were acquainted with thee circumstances of the police in Ireland, he would not now be found moving this Amendment.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that, after what he had heard, he thought it would be only courteous to the Prime Minister if he withdrew the Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said that the words "sub-inspector" had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of rendering it necessary that responsible officers of the peace should have the execution of the warrant. So far as that was the object of the Government, he was quite willing to admit it was deserving of some respect. He, however, wished it to be understood that he objected, and he certainly thought that the majority of his Colleagues would object, to the words "sub-inspector," and that they would support the Amendment to leave them out simply because they would limit the exercise of these general warrants. He admitted that the Prime Minister had spoken very fairly; but it must be remembered that this clause was one which restricted the liberties of the Irish people, and it was a clause which the Irish people were bound to resent and resist. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) had said that he believed that the power given under this clause would bring about the maximum of discontent with the minimum of service to the State. He (Mr. Leamy) believed that the only service which this clause in this Bill could be would be that it would produce ill-feeling against the ignorant brood of men who knew nothing about the Irish people, and cared very little about them, and who were incapable of understanding them. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. and learned Member opposite said "Oh, oh !"They were accustomed to look upon those Benches for the Whigs—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is whether "and sub-inspectors" be left out of the clause?
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he would endeavour to confine himself to the subject. The subject was a very small one indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had intimated by his interjection. It was an exceedingly small subject; in fact, it seemed to him that every Amendment which hon. Members on this side of the House moved to this Bill was something exceedingly small indeed, and scarcely worthy of the consideration of the Committee. He was quite aware of it. He was quite aware that they should allow this Bill to pass without opposition, even though it embraced within it provisions which the Whigs—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this is not a second reading. The question is simply whether "sub-inspectors" shall stand part of the clause?
    MR. LEAMYsaid, ho objected to "sub-inspectors," simply because, for one reason, he thought that if the power of executing warrants of general search was confined to County Inspectors, then, as everybody must admit, it would be confined to a much smaller class than if Sub-Inspectors were allowed to exercise it. He objected to the whole power of general search. He and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to defeat it. They had, however, failed, and the next best thing for them to do was to endeavour to limit its exercise as much as they possibly could.
    MR. R. POWERappealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) not to push this question to a division. He did so for this reason. He acknowledged that the Prime Minister had to-night made a concession to the Irish Party—a concession of the most valuable nature. They could not estimate the value of the concession that the police were not to invade the homes of the people of Ireland at any hour of the night. As the Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson), he thought that the hon. Member had some right to say whether this Amendment should be pressed to a division or not. He (Mr. E. Power) should be very sorry to interfere with his hon. Friend the Member for Durham in the matter; but he would ask
    1836
    his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Leamy) not to press the subject to a division, if the hon. Member for Durham did not wish it.
    MR. M'COANsaid, that the concession made by the Prime Minister had completely taken the wind out of the sail of the Amendment; and, although a warrant might be executed by even a Sub-Inspector, his power in the matter was very considerably limited. There was now no ground for objection left, and he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not force his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) to go to a division if he did not wish it; but, if he did, he would certainly be very glad to follow him in the Lobby. He must take this opportunity of protesting against the weak and washy language in reference to the concession of the Prime Minister. The concession had nothing to do with the clause they were now discussing. The clause they were now discussing remained, in spite of the concession, a most stringent and aggravating-one. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had said that Sub-Inspectors were mentioned for the first time. The hon. Gentleman evidently had not taken the trouble to read the Arms Act of last year. If he had, he would have found that the Lord Lieutenant might commission Sub-Inspectors to issue these warrants.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that he most heartily welcomed every concession that was made that went to limit or diminish the stringency of the measure; at the same time, he did not see how it was possible for Irish Members not to insist upon every Amendment that would go still further to limit the severity of the Bill. Ho was grateful to the Prime Minister for every concession in favour of the liberty of the subject in Ireland, and in favour of restricting the tyranny which it was possible to practice under this Bill. He and his hon. Friends stood there fighting, it might be, a losing battle; but, nevertheless, it was a battle they were bound to fight for the liberties of their fellow - countrymen; and every Amendment which went to limit the hardships and the tyranny of this measure, they, as a matter of absolute duty, were bound to support. This Amendment went to restrict the opera-

    1837
    tion of the Bill. It was to the effect that Inspectors, and not Sub-Inspectors, should have liberty to make these searches. Inspectors were fewer in number than Sub-Inspectors; and, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, it must necessarily be expected that fewer searches—and searches upon less trivial grounds — would be made. Sub-Inspectors would, no doubt, make searches upon very slight suspicion; but Inspectors, being fewer in number, as he had said, would probably not go to work without some substantial evidence to work upon. That being so, it seemed to him that the duty of the Irish Members was as clear as the sun at noonday. That duty was to support the Amendment, and every Amendment which went to mitigate the severities of the measure. He welcomed the concession of the Prime Minister, and he welcomed the spirit in which it had been offered. He hoped that in the further progress of this measure the same spirit would be acted upon, not only by the Prime Minister himself, but by others who, in his absence, would have charge of the measure.
    MR. SHEILsaid, he would endeavour to confine himself strictly to the Amendment before the Committee, and that Amendment he understood to be that the word "sub-inspector" should be omitted. He hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a division upon this Amendment, because it was of very great importance, notwithstanding the alteration —he preferred to call it an alteration, and not a concession—which the Prime Minister had made in the clause. Notwithstanding the alteration, which he admitted was an important one, he still thought that the power which would be placed in the hands of Sub-Inspectors was greater than some of them were entitled to have intrusted to them. They were young men, and from the position they held in the country, they were naturally arrogant. They sometimes rode over the people where they ought not to do so, and, altogether, it was very unwise that Sub-Inspectors should be intrusted with the execution of warrants. While he was on his legs he wished to refer to some remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) towards the end of the Morning Sitting. The hon. Baronet suggested that whether it be
    1838
    an Inspector or a Sub-Inspector who was employed in the search, an accurate report should be made by the officer at head-quarters, giving the reasons for the search and its results. That was a suggestion made when the Prime Minister was absent, and it seemed to him of such importance that he now ventured to repeat it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEAMYmoved to insert, after "in any," in line 14,"building or enclosure situated in any. "If his Amendment was accepted, the clause would run thus—
    "It shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant from time to time, by warrant, to direct the inspectors and sub-inspectors of constabulary for the time being acting in any constabulary district or any of them, to search for and seize in any building or enclosure situate in any proclaimed district, or in any part thereof, specified in the warrant."
    The Amendment was in the spirit of the Arms Act of last year, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to issue warrants empowering certain persons to search for arms; but it was provided that the warrant should specify the houses, buildings, or other places which were to be searched. He submitted that it was not at all an unfair thing that some requirement of this kind should be inserted in the clause before the Committee. He did not see on what ground the Government could object to such a reasonable Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 14, after the words "in any," insert "building or any enclosure situate in any."—(Mr. Leamy.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. R. POWERmoved to insert, after the word "ammunition," in line 15, the words "except a fowling piece, or ammunition for the same." His object in moving this Amendment was to protect small farmers in Ireland from being invaded in the day-time by the police who came to look for guns and ammunition. Under the Arms Act of last year there had been, of course, many searches for arms; but very few indeed had been found. He could not see why a farmer who had a licence for a gun, and who had also a licence to shoot over his own farm, should simply, because a person wrote to the Sub-Inspector and informed

    1839
    him that he had reason to believe that a certain farmer had arms in his house, should have his house invaded by the Constabulary at any hour of the day. He quite admitted that the Government had taken away from his argument a great deal of force by the concession which they had made in the previous Amendment, because his principal objection in this matter was that the farmer, simply because he had a gun in his house, should be liable to invasion at any hour of the night. They who lived in Ireland and knew how farmers carried on their farms, knew that it was necessary for them to have a gun for the protection of their crops—simply to frighten the crows out of their potatoes or wheat. The weapon used, however, was perfectly useless for any other purpose than that of frightening crows; and if they deprived the farmers of the use of it, they would inflict a great deal of injury upon them. If they were prepared to do that, they ought also to be prepared to grant compensation. He had another objection to this clause. Certain landlords in Ireland used the Peace Preservation Act for the preservation of their game; and, under the present Act, a landlord who wished to protect the game in his district, could exercise a large amount of power which certainly he had no right to possess. It was a monstrous thing that simply because a man had a gun in his house, and a person informed an Inspector that he had reason to believe that such was the case, that such Inspector should be able to go and take it away, although the man might have a perfect right to possess it to protect his crops from the depredations of birds and vermin.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 15, after the word "ammunition," to insert the words "except a fowling piece, or ammunition for the same."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had the greatest respect and sympathy for the feeling of hon. Members with regard to fowling-pieces and ammunition; but he would point out that, perhaps, other hon. Members might have the same feeling with regard to rifles and revolvers. They had all of them some favourite weapon, but he was afraid that
    1840
    whatever arm a person had a fancy for, it must be as suspicious as any other, and this fact must not be forgotten— which anyone who had had any experience of sport in India must know perfectly well—that a fowling-piece would send a bullet a distance of 50 or 60 yards as accurately and with almost as much effect as a rifle. A fowling-piece would send a bullet a short distance as satisfactorily as a rifle for all practical purposes, and, therefore, for all purposes of outrage a fowling-piece was as formidable as any other weapon that could be manufactured. If a farmer wished to carry a fowling-piece to protect his crops, or for the legitimate purpose of sport, he could go to the licence officer and obtain a licence. If he did not take that step, then he ought not to be allowed to keep a fowling-piece. As to the fear expressed by an hon. Member that some people would make use of the Arms Act for the preservation of their game, it must be remembered that not the landlords, but the stipendiary magistrates, were the licensing officers.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he agreed that to the murderer, or to the person who wished to commit an outrage, a fowling-piece was quite sufficient, but as a weapon of war it was totally useless. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had lived long enough in Ireland to thoroughly appreciate the complaint of the Irish farmers. These people required the use of fowling-pieces to protect themselves from birds. His hon. Friends called them "crows," but he did not think the birds that were such a nuisance to the Irish farmers were accurately described in the House of Commons by calling them crows. In England the great crow was the only bird called a crow, but in Ireland the rooks were called crows. Now, the rook might be a very useful bird at certain times of the year—[Cries of" Divide!"] Hon. Members cried "Divide!" but he wished to say a few words upon this question, as it was one in which he took a great deal of interest. He had taken the trouble, about a month ago, to question some of the farmers with regard to the depredations of these birds, and he had learned from them that they did damage in the country probably to the extent of £500,000 every year. He was told that each small farmer lost

    1841
    about£1 a-year through the depredations of the rooks. It would be seen, therefore, that the question was one of great importance to Irish agriculturists; and if the hands of these people were crippled, and they were not allowed to use the ordinary weapon for driving away or destroying the birds, they would be injured very much. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was a fair one, and he (Colonel Nolan) should give it his support. He did not desire to delay the clause, because he considered the Government had made ample concessions on it—indeed, if the Government made similar concessions he should be very willing to see the Bill pass through to-morrow or Thursday. He only wished to deal with this matter from an economical point of view, and he would suggest that if the Government did not allow the farmers to use fowling-pieces to protect themselves from the birds, the Poor Law Unions should be empowered to send officers on to the properties of the small farmers for the purpose of destroying the rooks and vermin. He would not enter fully into the desirability of adopting such a plan as this, but he would merely suggest that such a power might be given. Of course, the Poor Law Unions would not exercise it unless it were considered desirable to do so. On this matter there was great difference between England and Ireland. In England the rooks were shot every year, or every other year, in order to keep them down, and for the table, but in Ireland they were not shot for the latter purpose. The people would not eat them. It was necessary, however, that the farmers should have power to use fowling-pieces against them. They would not be able to drive them from their potatoes when the bulbs were beginning to form, and that was the time when most damage was done. If the Government prevented the farmers from doing that, they should take some other measures to protect them. Irish Members were bound to meet here in London, instead of Dublin, where all these things would be properly understood and properly considered, and that fact the Government ought to bear in mind. The Chief Secretary ought to take measures to ascertain the opinion of the country by requesting the evidence of competent men. He ought to take steps to find out whether, by refusing the
    1842
    farmers the use of fowling-pieces for the purpose of destroying rooks, he did not destroy the balance of nature, and allow the rooks to preponderate. As things were at present, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Richard Power) ought to be supported. This question was one in which his (Colonel Nolan's) constituents took great interest.
    MR. JONES PARRYsaid, he would not unduly occupy the time of the Committee. He should be very sorry to do so; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, and who attached such importance to rooks, appeared to know nothing about them and their habits. He (Mr. Jones Parry), however, did know something about them. He would not delay the Committee by stating his opinions or his experiences as to the habits of these birds, as it was utterly beside the question before the Committee—and, incidentally, he would remark that it would be a most desirable thing if hon. Gentlemen in this House would confine themselves more closely than they did to the questions directly under consideration. He would simply remark—and he would be very happy to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) his reasons for saying so, in private, if he desired them—that in his opinion, rooks did a great deal more good than harm. He would also venture to inform the hon. and gallant Member that young rooks made a remarkably good pie. He (Mr. Jones Parry), believing that rooks were not the only things shot from behind loop-holed stone walls in Ireland, should support the Government clause in its entirety.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had carefully guarded himself from expressing any opinion whatever as to whether rooks did harm or good. He had said that in Ireland they did not understand eating them—they had a prejudice, perhaps a bad one, against putting them in a pie. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to address the Chair?
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he did wish to address the Chair, because he thought this was a very important matter. If the Government insisted upon destroying the balance of nature by depriving farmers of their fowling-pieces, which were legitimate weapons for the pur-

    1843
    pose of destroying or frightening away the rooks, the Poor Law authorities should be enabled to take up the matter, As he had said, he did not pronounce an opinion as to whether rooks did good or harm. That was a question for the decision of scientific men; but the Committee was now proposing to interfere in Ireland with the system of preserving the ordinary balance of nature that they allowed to be practised in England. They allowed the farmers to frighten away the crows in England, but they would not permit it in Ireland. He merely wished to point out that a very large economic damage would be done by the passage of this clause, and the Arms Act, with which it was mixed up, and that the Chief Secretary ought to very carefully consider the matter before he came to a final resolve. He (Colonel Nolan) had some idea of introducing a clause on this subject on Report, but he was not sure at present whether or not such a course would be in Order. His clause would have the effect of giving the Poor Law authorities power to destroy the rooks where they thought it desirable.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he did not rise to discuss the merits or demerits of rook-pie, but he would like to point out to the hon. Member who introduced this interesting subject that rook-pie was a dish the Irish farmers were scarcely likely to enjoy, unless they were allowed to use weapons for the purpose of shooting the birds. He should like to ask the Government whether this clause was to override the Act of last year on this subject? Under the Act of last year a man might have obtained a licence to use a fowling-piece. That licence might have been given to him upon the production of a certificate signed by two magistrates in his own locality; and was he (Mr. Redmond) to understand—and he respectfully asked the attention of the Home Secretary, or some Member of the Government, to this matter—that under this clause the mere suspicion of a policeman was to override that certificate? ["No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) said "No, no!" but if the hon. and learned Member would read the clause, he would see that under it a person who had obtained a warrant from the Lord Lieutenant would be empowered, if he suspected that arms
    1844
    were in the possession of an individual, or were about to be used in connection with a secret society, to search the house or houses where he believed the arms to be, and might, if he found any, take possession of them, notwithstanding that they had been obtained under the Arms Act of last year.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if a man had obtained a licence under the Arms Act of last year, the mere fact of his possessing such a document would show that the arms were not likely to be suspected of being required for an unlawful purpose.
    MR. REDMOND: That is ridiculous.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member asked him a question, but would not allow him to answer it. If the hon. Member would allow him, ho would attempt to give him an answer. What he wished to say was this, that a licence under the Arms Act of last year would not come within this clause. Arms carried by licence would not be arms—
    "Suspected to be used or to be intended to be used for the purpose of, or in connection with, any secret society or secret association existing for criminal purposes."
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, ho would not detain the Committee two minutes; but he wished to ask whether, if farmers were not to be allowed to keep fowling-pieces for shooting these rooks which preyed upon their crops, would the police undertake to shoot the birds for them? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) knew what he was talking about on this matter, and he said that the birds did damage to the extent of about £500,000 per annum in Ireland. It was pointed out that the farmers could obtain licences to use fowling-pieces; but to obtain these licences they would have to go before the local magistrates, and that, he could assure the Committee, was a thing that very many farmers in Ireland would be very reluctant to do. If they went before a magistrate for this purpose, it was very probable that their request would not be listened to, that it would be refused, and that they would be insulted into the bargain. That would be likely to occur in very many cases; and he, therefore, said that if the farmers were not to be allowed to keep fowling-pieces for the purpose of destroying or frightening away the rooks, would the

    1845
    Government instruct the police to shoot the birds for them?
    MR. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not answer the question he had put to him as to whether the suspicions of a policeman were to override the Arms Act? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that when a licence was granted, the arms carried under that licence were not likely to be used for illegal purposes. He (Mr. Redmond) should suggest that the clause should be amended by the insertion of the words "except in the case of persons who had received licences." As the clause stood at present, even where licences were granted, the arms might be seized if subsequently a police-officer chose to suspect that they were going to be used for an improper purpose.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 31; Noes 155: Majority 124.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 15, after the word "ammunition," to insert the words "except arms held under licence under 'The Peace Preservation Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. Redmond.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. If arms were used in connection with a secret association, no licence ought to protect them.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, that if a licence was given to a man to carry arms by three magistrates, who believed him to be a proper person to have arms, such a man was not likely to have arms for felonious purposes. The clause without this Amendment would have this effect. That although a man might have a licence, in consequence of a certificate of three magistrates, that licence might be overridden simply by the suspicion of a police-officer. For this reason he urged the Amendment on the Committee, and hoped the Government would make some further statement, and not dismiss the proposal in a few words.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was true that if arms were employed for criminal purposes, a licence should not cover them; but the point of the hon. Member was that the fact of a licence
    1846
    granted by three magistrates ought to be stronger than the suspicion of a police-officer, and he did not think the Home Secretary had answered that objection. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was, that if arms were to be used for criminal purposes, or secret associations, of course licences should not cover them; but the question was whether the mere suspicion of an Inspector that arms were to be used for criminal purposes should override the licence of three magistrates? He thought the Government, having made a concession last year in the Arms Act, should not now take away the value of a licence by a side-wind.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was not reasonable that where three magistrates had carefully investigated the application of a man to have a licence to carry arms, after hearing the Constabulary authorities and everybody else interested in the case, that a Sub-Inspector, under the authority of a general warrant, issued by the Lord Lieutenant in regard to a particular district, should be allowed to go and over ride the action of the magistrates upon mere suspicion, and should be allowed to enter a house and confiscate any arms that might be found. Such a course would be worse than an absurdity—it would be a hardship. In the first place, a licence was given to a man to carry arms; but the next day a Sub-Inspector, simply by having a general warrant, would search a district and seize and confiscate the arms for which the licence was granted on the suspicion that they were intended for the purpose of, or in connection with, some secret society. The authorities already had a remedy for such a case. If, at any time, in granting a licence, the police should consider, owing to circumstances that might have come to their notice, or information they might have received, that a person holding a licence ought not to continue to hold it, it was in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to revoke that licence and so deprive the man of his arms. Surely it was not too much to ask, having in view that the Government had, itself power to revoke a licence, that the Amendment should be accepted. It was a most reasonable proposal, and he could not for a moment imagine why the Government objected to it. If there was any reasonable suspicion that a person licensed to carry arms was going to use them in

    1847
    connection with a secret association, that circumstance could be reported to the Castle, and the licence could be revoked.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite admitted that this clause, like many other clauses in the Bill, inflicted some hardship; but suppose that, in a search of this kind, the Inspector found arms which he had good reason for suspecting were about to be used for criminal purposes, was he to leave those arms in the hands of the men with all the risks of what use might be made of them while an application was being made to the Lord Lieutenant? That would be an entirely intolerable course. This clause, more than any other clause in the Bill, was directed to the evil of secret associations and to the apparatus of crime. Were they to leave the apparatus of crime in the hands of persons by whom they might be used for the most grave offences until a roundabout application could be made to the Lord Lieutenant to revoke the licence? The hon. Member said the licence might have been granted in the belief that the person receiving it was fit to be trusted; but magistrates were not infallible, although, for this purpose only, hon. Members opposite were disposed to to attach great value to the belief of magistrates that a man could be trusted with arms. A man might be perfectly well conducted when he received his licence, but he might be misled and betrayed into membership of a secret association, and so become totally unfit to be trusted with arms, and he might be found in possession of arms under circumstances leading to the conviction that he was going to use them for the worst purposes. Yet it was held that these arms were to be left in his hands until an application could be made to the Lord Lieutenant, and if that course were adopted the clause would be totally useless.
    MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that the Home Secretary had entirely forgotten the substantial concession recently made by the Prime Minister with reference to secret associations—namely, that searches were only to be made upon proof, or strong suspicion founded upon proof, that meetings of a society were being held in a particular house. Under ordinary circumstances, this section would carry the law no further than the section of the Peace Preservation Act of 1871 which enabled searches to be made for arms. That was substantially as far as
    1848
    this clause went, and the only exception now to be engrafted on the Act of 1881 would be the exception of search by night upon proof, or upon suspicion founded upon proof, that a secret society was holding a meeting at that moment in a particular house. What answer was there to the Amendment? Under the Act of 1881 the licence would save the possessor of arms; under this clause the licence ought equally to save him, unless some secret meeting was being held at a particular moment in his house, and proof of that meeting was in the hands of the Inspector or Sub-Inspector. He was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle or argument the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was founded after the concession made, and after the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. There had been no answer given to this Amendment, and, in his opinion, no answer could be given to it.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was not necessary to say that this clause would work hardship, because in that particular it was the same as every other clause in the Bill. He was at a loss to understand what difficulty the Government saw in accepting this Amendment. The Home Secretary laid stress on the time consumed in applying for a revocation of a licence; but everyone knew the speed with which communications were now carried on between different districts and Dublin Castle, and if a person in any district was no longer fit to hold arms, the telegraph wire would take that fact in half-an-hour to Dublin, and the licence could be revoked the next morning. The possession of a licence ought to protect a man from a domiciliary visit. The licence meant that two district magistrates were of opinion that the holder was fit to carry arms, and, furthermore, it meant that the opinion of district magistrates was confirmed by the Resident Magistrate, who was the highest police authority in the matter. In what a strange position that would leave the Government? On the one hand, there would be the man holding the licence declaring him fit to hold arms in the opinion of two district magistrates and one Resident Magistrate; and, on the other hand, a Sub-Inspector overriding the opinion of his official superiors, which was an improper and irrational proceeding. But suppose that a Sub-

    1849
    Inspector made a search—and he could conceive circumstances under which a search might be made from the point of view of the Government — suppose a Sub-Inspector got information that a society was holding a meeting in a house, and that there was a large number of weapons in the house to be used for criminal purposes, then he could understand the Sub-Inspector making a search; but if he made the search and found only the weapons for which the licence was granted, then on what pretence could they be confiscated? He invited the Home Secretary seriously to consider this point. He would let the Sub-Inspector make a search; but if he found only the arms mentioned in the licence, which a Resident Magistrate and two district magistrates thought the man was entitled to have, then the arms ought not to be taken away.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Home Secretary was going back on his old tack again. He had informed the Committee, with awe-stricken manner, that this clause was directed against secret societies; but experience showed that if there was one thing which domiciliary visits failed to do, it was to reach secret societies. He wished to ask the Home Secretary how many arms had been seized from secret societies by domiciliary visits since the Arms Act was passed in March of last 3'ear? Had he seized one? Had a single gun or weapon of any kind been seized under that Act which was suspected of being intended for the purposes of a secret association? Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a single instance; and, if not, why did he wish to retain this power? A clause of this kind was only useful for the purpose of irritating the population. He knew that many young men, shop-assistants and others, in Limerick had been turned into Fenians by the operation of a similar clause in the Act of 1870. They never intended to do anything against the Crown, but their boxes and private possessions had been turned out by the police, on the ground of searching for arms, and those men had since become Fenians, at least, in their hearts. It was in this way that revolution and sedition in Ireland were cultivated. He thought, as the Home Secretary was now asking for more stringent powers, he ought to show that the Act of last
    1850
    year had been in any single instance effectual in regard to secret and illegal societies.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed to him that the remarks of his hon. Friend called for an answer. He himself had shown earlier in the evening that, whereas, under a provision inserted in the Arms Act, £2,000 had been paid for arms legitimately delivered to the authorities, not a single gun or revolver had been seized under the right of search. He thought the Committee had a right to be informed what advantage the Government had obtained by the powers they already possessed, and if it was the case, as the Return showed, that a sum of over £2,000 had been paid for weapons honestly and legitimately delivered up by people who could not obtain licences to carry arms. The Chief Secretary, at least, ought to state how many guns, or revolvers, or cartridges, had been delivered under the existing Arms Act. He quite agreed that if the right hon. Gentleman had no information he could not give it; but, generally, if he had information he was very anxious to launch it upon the Committee. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had stated that not a single revolver, or gun, or a pinch of powder, or a percussion cap had been seized under the existing powers to search between sunrise and sunset; and, per contra, as the Government had, under what might be called the benevolent clause of the former Act, refunded £2,000 to persons for their arms and ammunition, it stood to reason, if the Government wished to get arms delivered back from those who held them, that they should still pursue the benevolent method, and not the reverse, as they now proposed. Was it desirable to pursue the discussion upon this clause after the statement made by the Prime Minister? After that statement, he thought they might come to a speedy conclusion upon it. If it were the fact, as the Prime Minister had said, that they only wished to use this power of night-search to discover the holding of illegal meetings, what was the good of the Government going on with the clause? They already had the power to search by day, and why should the Home Secretary be so obstinate as to this particular provision? Let the Home Secretary answer the question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and

    1851
    say whether the Government had found a single gun or pinch of powder under the Arms Act; and whether ho supposed that during the night members of secret societies, who possessed guns or ammunition, would transfer those illegal articles from bog-holes and grave-yards and other places of illegal deposit to their homes for illegal purposes.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which this discussion was being conducted. He had already said what he had to say upon this clause, and now the hon. Member asked for details as to the seizure of arms. That was not his special department; he knew more about arms in England. But the hon. Member was entirely mistaken if he supposed that no arms were seized under the Act of last year.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that was not his question. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and by implication ho made a statement, whether any arms had been seized by means of domiciliary visits, which were intended to be used, or were suspected of being intended to be used, by secret societies?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was answering the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who said that not a single gun or pinch of powder had been taken under the Act of last year. That statement was not accurate. To say there were not as many arms as might have been seized, and, in his opinion, ought to have been seized, would be perfectly true, and that was why this clause was introduced. The clause in the last year's Act was unfortunate, on account of the limitations in the warrant, and that was why this clause was introduced without such limitations on the search-warrant, because these limitations defeated the Search Clause last year. Believing that there were in Ireland at this time—and, he might say, knowing that there were—large quantities of arms in the possession, or in connection with, secret societies, this clause was introduced in order that they might be found and seized.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that in the last two or three speeches there has been no relevancy to the Amendment. The Amendment is to except arms held under licences under the Peace Preservation
    1852
    Act of 1881; but the whole discussion has been upon the clause, and not on the Amendment. I must ask any hon. Gentleman who rises to speak to the Amendment alone.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he must confess that he did not agree with some of his hon. Friends who had spoken on this Amendment, for he thought it would be a good tiling if the police were to seize most of the arms held under permission from the magistrates. The object of this clause, as the Government proposed it, was to enable the Sub-Inspectors to deprive any farmer, who might happen to be objectionable to them, of the fowling-piece which was necessary for the protection of his field from birds and rabbits. There was not the slightest probability that this clause would enable the Government to seize any arms intended to be used for illegal purposes. The power under the present Act had never enabled the Government to seize those arms, and they never would be able to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that he was better informed in reference to arms in England than in Ireland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of the number and condition of arms in England could be judged by the statement in the public Press, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge was very limited indeed. The danger of this clause, as it stood, in reference to Ireland, was that it might be used in a malicious way by the police to deprive farmers of the arms which were necessary to protect their crops, and thereby inflict on farmers, who might be regarded by the police as objectionable persons, serious loss from damage to their crops. The Amendment, as it stood, would diminish that danger. Speaking for his own county, he knew that injury had already been inflicted, practically in defiance of the law, by the police, upon every man who was suspected of being a person holding opinions not liked by the police authorities of the country. These men had been deprived of their arms. They had been robbed during the last year of a certain amount of their crops by being deprived of their arms, with which they were enabled to kill the game which was so destructive to their crops, and, therefore, he did not agree with some of his hon. Friends who had spoken upon this question. He was of

    1853
    opinion that it was a very good thing for every man to have a gun, and he should take the liberty of differing materially and strongly with the hon. Gentleman who had supported this Amendment.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the object of the clause was simply vexatious and irritating to the well-disposed and law-abiding people, while it would not in any way interfere with the criminals. It appeared that, under this Act, constables would have power to confiscate arms and ammunition. He himself had had some experience of the inconvenience and annoyance which arose from confusing and conflicting Acts of Parliament with reference to the possession of arms in Ireland. In the year 1871, when the Act of 1870 was in force, he was in possession of a bijou rifle, and he went down to the sea-side, taking this rifle with him. The Wild Birds' Act was not then in force, and he wished to amuse himself by shooting sea-gulls and the like. It so turned out that he went into a proclaimed district, and a police-constable came up to him and asked him whether he had a licence to carry this toy-rifle. He produced an Excise licence, but he was told that that was not sufficient, and that he would have to be taken into custody. He told the constable who he was, and the constable was very civil. He was desirous not to take him (Mr. Gray) into custody, but he said the law was imperative, and he should have to arrest him. This was on the Saturday afternoon, and he was brought to the police-station. At the station he saw the Inspector, to whom he said, "This is a very irritating business;" to which the Inspector replied—"I do not wish to keep you, but I have no option; I must keep you. I have no means of liberating you now, as there happens to be no magistrate in the county, and the only thing that I can suggest is that you should remain in the cell until Monday morning. "This was at Mallahide; and the Inspector said that the magistrate might probably return to his residence on Monday morning, when he (Mr. Gray) could be liberated. This was not a very pleasant prospect, and he asked the Inspector if there was no other way by which he could be liberated before Monday. The Inspector replied, "No; I am very sorry, but I must keep you." At last, he (Mr.
    1854
    Gray) said—"Well, you had better send me in custody into Dublin, and there we will find a magistrate who is a magistrate of the county." He was sent to Dublin in charge of a constable bearing his own and his (Mr. Gray's) rifles. He was brought to Dublin Castle, and there he was introduced to the Inspector General of Constabulary, who said he was sorry for the inconvenience to which he (Mr. Gray) had been put, and, as he was a magistrate for the county as well as for the city, he would liberate him at once. He (Mr. Gray) heard no more about the matter. He was not disposed at that time to be of a very rebellious disposition, or to use his rifle for the purpose of committing any offence; but this just illustrated the way these Acts were worked. They irritated and annoyed the lawfully-disposed people, while they did nothing towards catching any member of criminal society. The clause, as modified by the Prime Minister, proposed that these night domiciliary visits should only be used for the purpose of arresting people who were actually meeting in a house for secret purposes. For what purpose did the Government ask power to seize arms? Surely, it merely led to confusion; it merely tended to irritate and cause discontent amongst the lawfully-disposed, and it never would touch a single criminal. It had not been shown that under the Act of last year a single arm was confiscated that the Government suggested as being used for the purpose of a secret society. Doubtless, by this clause, many persons as loyal as he was in 1870 would be greatly irritated. Though the occurrence which he had related did not turn him into a Fenian, it greatly annoyed him, and he had never forgotten it, and he had never had the same respect for English administered law since that date as he had before. They might occasionally seize arms by entering houses at night; but it was possible to be shown, subsequently, that those arms had been licensed under the Act of last year. He had no hesitation in saying that this clause would not affect secret societies in the slightest degree, but it would create discontent and disaffection.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had not been able to mention a single instance in which, during the last year, any gun or ammunition had been seized as a result of domiciliary visits which

    1855
    was intended to be used for the purpose of a secret society, and he believed it might also be stated to be a fact that no weapon of any kind had been seized as the result of any domiciliary visit at all, thus clearly showing that such clauses were perfectly useless for the purposes they had in view. He wished to show, also, that this clause would supply an inducement to the persons who believed the police had any ill-will against them to conceal any valuable arms they might have. Suppose a farmer with a valuable fowling-piece worth, say, £20 or £30, for which he had got a licence, it would be in the power of a magistrate or Sub-Inspector to come in at random after that licence had been given, and, under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, absolutely confiscate that weapon. Consequently, any person who had a valuable arm of any kind would be very much inclined to conceal it, if he had reason to suppose that the police had any spite against him and intended to search his house for arms.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, that what had happened with reference to this Amendment was a very fair instance of the way in which the Government, by their own obstinacy, prolonged the discussion upon the clauses of this Bill. The point for which the Irish Members were contending was a very small one. The Amendment, if the Government had assented to it, would not in the slightest degree have impaired the efficiency of the clause, but, by making a concession, the Government would have tended, to some extent, at any rate, to conciliate a large section of the Members in this House, and they would certainly have facilitated the progress of the Bill. But on every occasion of this kind, when matters like this were left to the discretion of the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), they found the Government taking a most firm position, and refusing to make the slightest concession. Before they proceeded to a division, he would like to ask the Committee seriously to consider what the real point at issue was. Under the Act of last year, it was provided that farmers of respectable character, who were able to prove that they were of respectable character to two magistrates belonging to their own districts, should obtain from those two magistrates a certificate of good character, and a certi-
    1856
    ficate that they were not about to use arms for illegal purposes. They thereupon could obtain from the licensing authority, which was composed of the Resident Magistrates, a licence to carry arms. It was, however, provided by this clause of the present Bill to override that licence at the mere suggestion of a police-officer. The contention of the Home Secretary was very plain and very unjust. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the licence to the farmer might have been granted 12 months ago, but the suspicion that he was about to use his arms for illegal purposes might be of more recent date, and, if that were so, the suspicion must be acted upon at once and without the delay that would be consequent upon. what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called a roundabout application to the Lord Lieutenant to revoke the licence. That was a fair statement of the objection which had been argued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who, by the way, added that the police authorities would not have power to search for those arms without, in the first place, making an application to the Lord Lieutenant. The answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was conclusive. If, in the first place, the police were able to give sufficient reason to the Lord Lieutenant to induce him to grant a warrant to enable them to search for arms, they, at the same time, would be able to give sufficient reason to the Lord Lieutenant why he should revoke the licence previously granted. There was not the slightest necessity for a second's delay. As soon as the police authorities believed there were in a particular district arms which might be used for illegal purposes, all they would have to do was this. In addition to applying to the Lord Lieutenant for power to search houses, they must represent to His Excellency the necessity of revoking the licence he had granted. Such a proceeding would not entail any delay, and he ventured to say that the request of the Irish Members in this matter was most reasonable. A second point was raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Under the Act of last year, it was provided that if men possessing arms gave their arms up voluntarily to the Constabulary they should be paid compensation, and in case they had obtained a licence, they

    1857
    were allowed, of course, to retain their arms. What was proposed by this clause? In the case where men had not given up their arms because they had got licences to keep them, it was proposed, on the suspicion of a police officer, to take their arms from them without any compensation whatever. The least that might be done would be this—that in cases where arms were taken from persons who had previously held them under a licence, the Government should grant them compensation. If the Government acted upon the principle of the Bill of last year, they were bound to give the people compensation, because compensation was only refused in cases where they had refused licences, and where the people had refused to give up their arms. The Home Secretary, as another objection to the Amendment, said that the magistrates in granting the licences might not be infallible. It was well known the magistrates were not infallible; but did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to contend that police officers, on whose suspicion a seizure of arms would be made, were infallible? If he did not, what did he mean by talking about the fallibility of magistrates. He sincerely trusted that upon this matter he would have the support, not only of hon. Members from Ireland, but those hon. Members representing English constituencies who did not desire to see this Act more oppressive on the people of Ireland than was absolutely necessary, in their opinion, for the suppression of crime.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it appeared to him that the Home Secretary must be quite unaware of the proposal which had been previously made. The fact was that the police should only enter a house for the purpose of search, and the Amendment proposed that arms which had been previously licensed should not be seized by means of a night's search, day search, or any search at all. If it be the case that nothing should be seized at night, except when an illegal meeting was discovered, it was evident, from the position which the Home Secretary had taken up, that he was quite unaware of the concession made by the Prime Minister. He would ask when the Government intended to bring in their Amendment as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister? Would they bring it up to-morrow, or upon Report?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: On Report.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 32; Noes 203: Majority 171.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he rose to move an Amendment, the object of which was to take from Sub-Inspectors the power proposed in this clause of not only searching for and seizing arms and ammunition, but also papers and documents. This power, if exercised, would, he believed, lead to a vast amount of irritation and exasperation, and would scarcely be of any practical value to the Government. If the Government thought arms were concealed in Ireland, to be concealed for the purpose of treason or the commission of crime, there might, from their point of view, be very good ground for taking this power of search; but the Committee should bear in mind the way in which this power of seizing papers was exercised during what was called a conspiracy in Ireland. The police entered houses and ransacked every part; searched for papers, and took away not only papers which could by any possibility be connected with secret associations, but papers belonging to all the members of the family. He hardly understood how any Englishman could support such a power as was claimed under this clause. He could not expect, at that time of the night, when English Members had gone away, disgusted probably with the proceedings of the Committee, and with the fight which Irish Members thought it necessary to make for what they believed to be the rights of their people under the Constitution, to secure the sympathy of English Members; but he would ask any English Member who cared to listen whether he did not think that Ireland was a part of the Kingdom which ought to enjoy some of the benefits of the British Constitution; and whether he thought it right to seize papers which might be suspected by a policeman as absolutely necessary for preventing crime in Ireland; and whether he thought such a power could have any effect but to further irritate the people against the English Government, and convince them of the uselessness of expecting to have an equal share in the benefits of the Constitution? The searches under

    1859
    the Arms Act of last year bad been very extensive, and sometimes the police entered 100 houses in one day in the same locality. These visits had been so carried on that floors bad been broken up, and every part of the house which, in the opinion of the police, might conceal arms had been torn open in the search. He could understand that if the police were authorized to search for documents their search must be minute; but he could not understand the Home Secretary asking for this clause. He bad heard the right hon. Gentleman describe himself as a Whig; but he thought the Home Secretary might have gone back to the time when Fox and the Duke of Bedford were standing up for the right of freedom of speech in the country, and have followed their example. How could the Chief Secretary for Ireland support this clause? He did not care whether it was exercised by day or by night; but he was not willing to be held as joining in the praises which had been expressed of the Treasury Bench for the so-called concessions they had made. The proposals of the Government were equally opposed to the Constitutional rights of the Irish people; and, therefore, he was equally opposed to this power of search. How could the Home Secretary justify this power—this searching which would go to the length of examining every portion of a house and carrying off every paper that could be found? It was stated the police might only search for documents which they suspected were connected with unlawful societies. How would this clause work? A search might be made in a country district on a particular day, when, perhaps, 40 or 50 houses would be examined; a number of manuscripts would be found in each house, and these loose papers could not be examined there and then in the house, to show whether they were or were not connected with secret societies, but they would be carried away altogether. That happened in 1866–7, when letters which had no connection with secret societies—and even girls' love-letters—were carried off. What could the Home Secretary expect to gain by this proposal? He knew bow minute a search for arms could be; but if documents were to be searched for, even a man's clothes hanging on a door would be subject to examination, and every piece of paper upon which there was the least writing would be seized. Did the
    1860
    Home Secretary think that if such a power of search were given to the police, and was known throughout the country, that people were fools enough to keep compromising documents inside their house? Of course, they would not do anything of the kind, and when the police made searches the only people likely to be hurt would be the innocent people. Other people who desired to keep secret arms and papers would take good care to have them outside the house. He did not see how the Home Secretary could hope to gain by this power, and he hoped the Amendment would receive the support of English Members.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 15, to leave out from the word "ammunition," to the words "to be "in line 16.—(Mr. Leamy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'papers, documents, instruments, or' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that be had already pointed out that this clause was directed against secret societies, and unless the Government possessed these powers they could not attempt to grapple with secret societies. Did hon. Members mean to say that if the police found in the house these documents of incitement to assassination and intimidation, and murderous placards, they were not to seize them? Of course, they must seize them, and take into custody the people who were in charge of them. If anything was to be done for the prevention of crime it must be by actions of this character, and he must be permitted to say that when the Committee entered on the consideration of this Bill hon. Members opposite said they were very anxious to co-operate in a Bill for the prevention of crime. He should like to know what symptom there bad been from them of that desire? What were the measures which hon. Members were disposed to take for the prevention of crime in Ireland '? He should like to see any one hon. Gentleman on those Benches get up and say in what way they had assisted in any measure for the prevention of crime. There was no clause or suggestion for that purpose which had not met with the same extreme and unrelenting opposition. What were the measures hon. Members proposed to

    1861
    take? He should have thought that if there was any measure in passing which every right-minded man in that House, and out of the House, would have been disposed to take part, it would have been something that would have given power to the law to stop the circulation of such documents as that which had been read on the previous nights, inciting to the murder of innocent men, simply for lending cars to the police. The Government must and would take such powers as were necessary to seize such documents.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to ask Irish Members what measures they would recommend for the prevention of crime in Ireland, because they had repeatedly, during the last 12 months, informed the House of the measures they proposed; but the Government had rejected their recommendations. A short time ago they recommended an Arrears Bill, and they believed—and they ought to know—that if that Bill had been passed, and the Government had not gone back upon their brutal policy of coercion, which had proved to be a failure under the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), crime would have been prevented. During the fortnight or three weeks when it was supposed the Government were about to depart from this policy of coercion crime greatly diminished in Ireland—it diminished as much in one month, when it was supposed that the Government were going to trust to the honour and good feeling of the Irish people to repress crime, as it had increased during the four months of the coercion policy of the late Chief Secretary. The Irish Members had never ceased recommending such measures in order to prevent crime, and he failed to see what further proof could be given to the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been a consistent advocate of legal violence against the Irish people; and yet he now came forward with his last act of legal violence, which he was pressing through the House with the relentless determination to accept no Amendment except those of trivial importance. Irish Members did not lie under the reproach of having refrained from stating their recommendations. They believed Ireland would have been pacified if the counsels
    1862
    of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been followed. Those counsels had been followed, and the responsibility was not on the shoulders of the Irish Members; and he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) was entitled to some other reply than that he had received on the present occasion. Under this clause, as it stood, the police could take a man's clothes on the ground that they were to be used for the purpose of carrying out the objects of illegal associations. There was no definition in this Act from beginning to end, and that was what the hon. Member asked for. The Home Secretary had persistently followed up his policy upon this clause of refusing to define anything, and of leaving every person and every civil right in Ireland to the tender mercies of the police.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Home Secretary told the Committee that he was anxious to have the power of searching for treasonable and seditious documents. He begged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary what he thought of the following document:—
    "Think you Queen of England, you Prince of Wales, you Duke of Edinburgh, you Duke of Connaught, you Prince Leopold, you Princesses Royal, Helena, Louise and Beatrice; you lazy Royal louchers on the labours of the people—"
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member reading some paper he has found in Ireland?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN,said the extract was from an Irish paper—
    "You lazy Royal louchers on the labours o a suffering people, and you haughty aristocrats, you bloated capitalists, you land and money thieves—"
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reading an article which uses disrespectful words to the Queen. It is not allowed that disrespectful words to the Queen should be used in this House even in a quotation.
    MR. HEALYrose to Order. This clause dealt with any arms, ammunition, papers, or documents, and with the power to seize papers and documents under this clause. He wished to ask whether the fact that the more reprehensible the language read by the hon. Member was the more desirable it was that it should be exposed in the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order is a different matter. In any speech of any hon. Member, even by quotation, it is improper to use words disrespectful to the Sovereign.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not read another word of the extract which was disrespectful to the Royal Family; but he would go on with the other portion—
    "Think, you haughty aristocrats, you bloated capitalists, the land and money-thieves of today—think, we say, before it is too late, and repent of your misdeeds; disgorge the wealth you have only got by murder, exaction, robbery, and rapine of the most vile form; tremble with the knowledge that the day of retribution is fast approaching when an oppressed nation will rise in the majesty and grandeur of their might, and sweep you, the blight and curse of every age, from the face of the earth like so many vermin as you are. Oh, yes! sweep you from the earth, for only your extinction can cure our misery. And now, what is the remedy for such a state of things? Why, a war to the knife against the governing classes of to day—war against all these legalized thieves and murderers. Oh, yes! workers of to-day, there is nothing left for you to do but to steel your nerves, dry your powder, sharpen your weapons, tighten your grasp, and drive the blight flashing steel clean through the trembling heart of your bloodstained foe."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he wished to search for treasonable and seditious documents. Surely he ought to search for treason and documents wherever they were to be found; and this extract, though it appeared in an Irish paper, appeared there only for the purpose of denouncing it, while the paper in which it first appeared as serious advice and counsel to the people, was not an Irish paper, but an English paper. By this extract he would test the sincerity of the Home Secretary. Why was treason and sedition to be sought for and punished in Ireland, and allowed to go scot free in England? There was no Irish paper that would seriously publish this extract; and, although it appeared in an Irish paper, it was published in order to be held up to scorn and reprobation. But there was no reprobation of it, and no punishment of it, so far, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who, in this clause, acknowledged a measure sought for the persecution of Irish journals who would be ashamed to publish such incitements to treason, assassination, and murder as this, which was published within the reach
    1864
    of his own hand in the City of London.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was well known ho had little sympathy with the course which hon. Members below the Gangway were pursuing; but he had road the Oath of Allegiance, and it was the duty of every Member of that House, whenever he could procure evidence of treasonable intentions against Her Majesty, or against any member of the Royal Family, to denounce in that House all such publications as had been quoted by the hon. Member for the purpose of inducing its suppression. If the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had reason to believe that the words he had cited, utterly treasonable as they were, had appeared in an English newspaper, he had a perfect right, and, indeed, was bound by his Oath, to denounce that paper.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought the hon. Member for Westmeath had done public service by calling attention to the tolerance which the Home Secretary extended to treason in England. The only argument of the Home Secretary in favour of the unamended condition of the clause which his hon. Friend sought to amend, was that he desired to have powers to seize such documents as he had read to the House on a previous night. The document which the Home Secretary read last night was an extract from an Irish Conservative newspaper; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman could very easily get at Irish Conservative newspapers without searching the homes of the Irish peasantry. He had, however, only interposed to express his regret that while the Committee was engaged in the calm discussion of this Amendment, and with a business-like desire to put forward objections and arguments against the clause, the Home Secretary had intervened to cast oil on the troubled waters in his own inimitable manner. He thought the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not interfere with the rapid progress of Business.
    MR. SEXTONasked what more was wanted if the Government were able to seize arms, papers, and documents? If they could seize records and correspondence of secret societies, what could the wildest imagination conceive it was necessary to seize beyond them? Under this clause, they might seize even the

    1865
    furniture of a house, and, perhaps, set up as dealers in old furniture; but he supposed that was not the intention of the Government.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would meet the suggestion to leave out "instruments or articles," in order to avoid a division?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there were some articles which it was very necessary to seize, such, for instance, as crape masks.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to know whether the police would proceed to read all the murderous placards—all the documents and papers found on the premises; and would a responsible officer decide on the spot, before proceeding to arrest a person, whether or not the documents discovered were illegal? What he meant was this. Would the documents be read, and would a decision be come to by the search officer as to their legality or illegality before they were seized, and before the person in whose house they were found or their owner was arrested?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that under this clause it was not proposed to seize persons at all.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 175; Noes 30: Majority 145.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
    MR. HEALYsaid, that as he thought it was desirable that they should come at once to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power), which were of great importance, and as his (Mr. Healy's) Amendments had practically been decided by the vote that had been taken, he would not move those Amendments.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment he had to propose, which was to the effect that the search officer should communicate to the head of the force to which he belonged the reason why he made a search. He considered it to be desirable that at Dublin Castle there should be a record of the number of searches made. Some inconvenience had been experienced by the House through the want of such information
    1866
    in regard to the operation of a similar clause in the Act of 1870.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 19, after the word "Majesty," to insert the words "Provided, That the officer who conducts a search shall in every case forward a report to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, setting forth the cause of the search and its results."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was a provision that he had never heard of in any search clauses before. It was impossible, in an Act of this kind, that all the grounds of suspicion, and all the details of the search, should be set forth.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he had never heard of a Proviso of this kind; but if he would turn back to Subsection 2 of Clause 9 he would find these words—
    "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."
    As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood it—he had not seen the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and had only heard it read—it seemed similar to this sub-section. He took it for granted that the Government had very good reason for putting this Sub-section 2 in Clause 9—that they did not do it without sufficient ground. He supposed that the idea was that the necessity of supplying this report to the Lord Lieutenant would act in some way as a restraint upon the capricious arrest of strangers. His hon. Friend proposed what was practically the same as Sub-section 2 of Clause 9—namely, that a Police Inspector or Sub-Inspector should use the powers of the clause, and give a report in every case in which he used the powers to the Inspector General of Constabulary. Well, such a document would be confidential. It was not a document that would have to be laid before Parliament, and simply would provide that the power should not be used capriciously. It appeared to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a very reasonable proposal.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the reason the provision was inserted in Clause 9 was that the clause was a power against the person. It was provided in that clause that if persons arrested did not give security for good behaviour or to keep the peace he should be imprisoned for one month. In order that the Lord Lieutenant could discharge such a prisoner, if it was thought desirable, it was necessary that a subsection of this kind requiring a report to be submitted should be inserted in the clause. A clause similar to the present with regard to search for firearms was inserted in the Bill of last year. When, under that Bill, a policeman entered a house and searched for and seized arms, no such report as was now referred to was thought of.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had rightly read this subsection. The words were—
    "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."
    That was to say, whether the prisoner was committed or discharged. It was necessary that this report should be laid before the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, because His Excellency might have to discharge the prisoner; but, under this clause, this might occur where a prisoner had been discharged, and, therefore, where he was not seeking any clemency. The precedent of last year could scarcely be quoted in favour of the stringent regulation of the present clause. The clause of the Act of last year was of a comparatively mild character compared with this, for the reason that the person against whom the warrant was to be issued had to be mentioned in the warrant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be entirely following out the sub-section of Clause 9 by agreeing to this Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member was not correct in saying that the report had to be furnished to the Lord Lieutenant under Clause 9, whether the prisoner was committed or discharged. The sub-section said—
    "And in any case shall forthwith transmit a report of the committal to the Lord Lieutenant stating the grounds of the committal."
    1868
    No report at all would be sent unless there was a committal, for the clause said the Lord Lieutenant
    "May order the prisoner to he discharged if it seems just to him so to do."
    The words "in any case" only referred to the committal, not to the discharge. If a person was discharged there would be no report. In the Act of 1847 no such words as these were contained.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he must take exception to the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman read the subsection. A man might be committed and then discharged, and then a report would have to sent to the Lord Lieutenant.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought some provision of this kind would be very reasonable. He supported the clause generally, because it seemed to him it was necessary to have some check upon the police, to prevent the possibility of their making searches without sufficient grounds—it was desirable to have a record of the proceeding. He quite agreed that to make public the grounds upon which the search was made would have the effect of defeating the object of the clause; but he certainly thought that some Departmental and private report of the grounds and of the suspicion should be made. Such report would not interfere with the object of the clause, and he trusted that something of that kind would be agreed to.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary mean to say that he was going to supply a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector of police with what were practically blank warrants to search wherever he pleased, without requiring any record of those searches to be returned? Was he going to allow these policemen to travel over the country at their own goodwill, without the knowledge of the Government or their superiors, and to search the house of any individual in the town and district in which they might reign? Was that so? If it were, it would be well for the Government to say it plainly, and not to be wearing a Constitutional mask. Let them establish their benevolent despotism openly—let them confer openly on their subordinates all the privileges and powers of despotism; but if they meant,

    1869
    even colourably, to rest under the sanction of Constitutional government, the House had a right to ask that when an agent of the Executive performed such an act as to search a man's house at night, or even in the day, some record of that action should be kept. Such records would be found even in Russia, not to speak of England. At least, the Irish people had a right to demand that they should be granted the liberty that was allowed to the subjects of Russia. If this clause were passed in its present form, what would be the result? Why, to confer on every Sub-Inspector in Ireland—and many of these officers were mere boys, without any experience either of government or of the world—the right of entering the house of any man in Ireland, at any hour, and under any circumstances that might please him, and turn that house upside down, without making the slightest report or record of his action. Was that a state of things the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would desire to see established in Russia or in Turkey? If he would not, at least they had a right to demand that he should not be a party establishing such a state of things in Ireland; they had a right to demand that the Government would, at least, afford them the protection that would be offered by a foreign army in occupation, in the carrying on of actual hostilities, for the security of persons living in the country—he would not say of subjects, but simply of human beings. At least, in the present age, it would be almost impossible to find in the records of contemporary history such a power conferred on a Military Governor, in an Act passed during a time of hostilities, as that which would be conferred on the Irish police under the present Bill. Well, this being so, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He maintained that this record ought not to be confidential. It ought to be a public document. It ought to be a document that they in that House would have a right to examine. It ought to be a document within the reach of the House; but it appeared that this Government—this Liberal Government—was not prepared even to compel its subordinate officers to make a report to their superiors. Such a thing was simply monstrous. What was the Government establishing
    1870
    but a system of legalized brigandage? What were they converting their police into? Why, into a body of legalized brigands—they could not call them the mere executive officers of a civilized government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary smiled. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had little sympathy with civilized government. He would be more in his place as a Turkish Pasha than as an English Minister. He thought, on those conditions, the Government would do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this clause had been known for several years, and had not produced the terrible effects which were supposed to follow upon it. This clause had existed in Ireland in nearly the same form from the year 1847. Of course, the police performed the functions thrown upon them, and they reported to their superiors in the manner which their superiors directed, and not according to Act of Parliament. There was no Act of Parliament which directed what kind of reports the police should or should not make to their superiors. That matter was left entirely to the police authorities. Any policeman in London, upon suspicion of felony, could arrest any Member of that House, or anyone else, and would make such report to his superiors of the circumstances of the case as his superiors directed him to make. That would be precisely the same with regard to Ireland in cases of search.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, it was useless for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the practice in England was the same as in Ireland. He might imagine that the similarity was sufficient for the purpose of launching that sophistry upon the House; but he ventured to say that no Member of the Government would agree with him in the statement he had made. His hon. Friend proposed to place a check on the officer making search; and in doing so he asked nothing more than, in his opinion, ought to be conceded, even although the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not see that it was absolutely necessary. The clause they were engaged in discussing was a very stringent one, and it would only be consistent with good policy and expediency that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give way to

    1871
    Irish Members on points which did not interfere with the principle of the Bill. He could not see how such a Proviso as that proposed by his hon. Friend could interfere with the efficiency of the clause. If the Bill was to become law, he was anxious that it should work with the least possible amount of ill-feeling; and he ventured to say that the Proviso of the hon. Member for Sligo would tend in that direction.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Rules of Criminal Procedure in India were regulated by laws drawn up by an eminent body of jurists; but the regulations of the Indian police would require that a record should be made of the kind now asked for, and he trusted that the Government would issue proper orders with regard to police reports in cases of search in Ireland, there being a great deal of natural jealousy with regard to the way in which this power would be exercised. He thought the Government would do well to accept the Amendment, which would not interfere with the efficiency of those powers.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask what were the regulations at the present time with regard to the reports of policemen in the case of searches for arms? But the Department of the Constabulary required the Inspectors to make reports with regard to those searches, and they showed what were the details required to be given in those reports.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had already stated that in these matters there could be no doubt whatever that the rules of the Irish police were exactly similar to those of the English police. Hon. Members seemed to suppose that this was a kind of special legislation for Ireland; but that was not the ease, because there were already very stringent clauses relating to search in the English Statutes—in the Smuggling Acts, the Explosives Act, and others. It was entirely a matter of police discipline how or in what manner the police were to report to their superiors.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that reports were made, and it was difficult to understand why he was unable to give the information ho had asked with regard to the reports made at the present time by the police in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have misunderstood his question. He
    1872
    had simply asked whether reports were made in cases of search under the Act of 1881. He asked whether the reports were made by Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors carrying out these searches to the Constabulary Department in Dublin; what was the nature of those reports; and what were the details they were supposed to give. He asked for this information, because it would be a guide to Irish Members as to whether or not they should press this Amendment upon the Government. If it were not the custom of the Inspector General in Ireland to insist upon these reports being given with regard to the right of search applied under the Act of 1881, that would be a reason for pressing the Amendment of his hon. Friend upon the attention of the Government.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, ho could not answer as to the particular form of the reports which the officer executing the warrant would make to his superior officers.
    MR. SEXTONasked whether the officer reported why he made the search, and what he found on the premises? These were two essential points. It was desirable to know whether the suspicions of the police were justified or not by the result, and whether, in making the search, the police had conducted themselves properly. Irish Members were in possession of very little information upon this subject; and ho was unwilling, for his own part, to allow the matter to rest on the will of the officer of Dublin Castle. He wanted it to depend not upon the will of a Dublin Castle official, but upon the will of the House of Commons. He wished it to be made clear that a person who neglected his duty by not furnishing a report would be guilty, not only of a breach of discipline, but guilty in law.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, if these matters were reported by the police to their immediate superiors, even if the communication were confidential so far as the police were concerned, he could not see what objection the Government could have to placing that information before the House. If the police proceeded to make their search upon reasonable ground, what objection could the Government have to laying the reports upon the Table? The object of the Amendment was that a report should be made to the Inspector General in such a man-

    1873
    ner that it should he available for Members of that House. He said that the view that these reports should be confidential was not a sound view. The report should be of a nature that hon. Members should be able to reach it, and be able to judge as to whether the conduct of a particular police officer in making a search was justified or not. That was the only protection they could have against the abuse of the power conferred on the police under this Act, and that was exactly the point which had been evaded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that these reports were made by the police to their superiors. Then, were those reports of a nature which would afford any protection whatever to the liberty of the subject? It was not sufficient to say that a report was made by the police to their immediate superiors. They well knew in Ireland what was the value of these reports, and how little protection they afforded the innocent people. It was for that reason that Irish Members desired to import into this clause such a protection for the liberty of the subject that no subordinate officials should be able to use this Act for the purpose of tyranny, or as an engine of oppression against persons towards whom they had a personal spite. That was the object sought by this Amendment, but which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt with.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had not met the case. Although he had stated that the regulations of the police force, with regard to the reports which they made to their superiors, were the same in the case of Ireland and England, he (Mr. Dawson) was obliged to point out that the two systems were entirely dissimilar.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Allow me to say that the Dublin police and the Metropolitan police are in this respect exactly upon the same footing.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just made use of the only exception which existed, and had thereby proved his rule.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had set forth the desirability of having some documents which would be within
    1874
    the knowledge of Parliament, and subject either to its approval or censure. If an Amendment were put forward for the purpose of securing that object, he should feel it his duty to give it his support. But that was not the ground taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew very well, the proposal was that the Inspector should send in a report of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary setting forth the causes of search. His hon. Friend thought that these words would have the effect of putting a check upon the action of police officers; and he challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any of his Colleagues, to show in what way the adoption of the Amendment could possibly prejudice the operation of the clause. If, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the rules of the Service already required a report to be made, what harm could there be in inserting the words proposed by his hon. Friend in the clause? It was hardly worth while, at that time of the morning, seeing that in the course of a few hours they should be again engaged in the weary work of discussing this Bill, to reject words which could neither be said to be necessary nor superfluous.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 127: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. P. Martin.)
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he desired to make a few remarks with regard to what had occurred at the commencement of the evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made a statement which, he said, he hoped and believed would greatly shorten the discussion on this clause. It was a most important statement, and a construction was at once put on it—a construction which he hoped and believed was erroneous—by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who said that, after the concession that had been made, it was unnecessary to proceed with the Amendment. This happened at half-past

    1875
    9 o'clock; and he (Mr. Pluuket) wished to put it on record that from half-past 9 to half-past 1 in the morning they had been discussing this matter without any reference whatever to the concession made by the Prime Minister. This appeared to him to be an instructive illustration of the advantage of such concessions to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway. Well, he (Mr. Plunket) wished to say just a word or two on the present aspect of the debate. The interpretation hon. Members below the Gangway, as he had said, had put on the words of the Prime Minister was that, under this clause, no search for arms or secret apparatus of murder was to be made at night, and that, therefore, if the Constabulary, under this clause, entered a house to discover an illegal meeting which they suspected was being held, if no illegal meeting was being held at that moment, although all these things, these secret apparatus of murder, and these documents were there, the officers could not seize them. Such a concession would render the clause useless, and would make the discussions which had taken place upon it nothing but a farce. He did not wish to undervalue the seriousness of a right of search, and it was a very important matter to give such a right at all. Unfortunately, it had often been necessary to give such powers in Ireland. In quiet times they had been relaxed; but, as hon. Members must be aware, times were no longer quiet in that country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary himself, in serious, eloquent, and clear words, had referred to this clause in introducing the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken under the shadow of a great crime, and at that time he perfectly remembered that it was said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House that they would not do anything to interfere with the law enacted for the purpose of preventing such terrible atrocities as those which had just then taken place in Ireland. The Home Secretary had referred to this clause as most essential. He said—
    "The first of these provisions is one, I think, that the House will see is most necessary. It is a power to search for the secret apparatus of murder, for the daggers, for the documents, for the threatening letters, for the crape masks,
    1876
    which are hidden, and which the police cannot reach; and unless the police have the power to enter houses and look for them, the persons who make use of these apparatus possess practical immunity. This clause of search—which will be pointed directly to these secret societies, these unlawful combinations—will be practically the clause of the Act of 1870. The search will take place by day or by night."—[3 Hansard, eclxix. 468.]
    This was the meaning put deliberately upon this clause by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Let them, then, consider the consequences if this construction of the hon. Member for Wexford was to be put on the Prime Minister's words, and if the alteration suggested was to be made in the clause. At present there was, no doubt, a power to search houses for arms during the day time; and the only effect of this clause, when amended as proposed, would be to add to the power already existing the power of search for documents. [Mr. HEALY: During the night.] No, during the day. That was to say, that these persons—"Captain Moonlight" and his gang—could walk about all the day with these illegal documents, and could come home at night and sleep comfortably with these things scattered about their houses, the police having no power to search for them. It was absurd for the Committee to be spending a whole night in passing such a clause. And, with regard to illegal meetings, was it to be supposed that if the clause passed in the form suggested, they would ever be likely to discover any of these documents? If the interpretation which hon. Members had put upon the Prime Minister's words were correct, it would come to this—that a policeman would go into a place where he suspected an illegal meeting was taking place, but that if no meeting was at the time actually in session, although all these documents might be lying about, nothing could be done. He was sure whatever advice had been given by the Lord Lieutenant, who was responsible for the peace of Ireland, on these matters, it could not have been advice which would have supported such a construction as that being placed upon the clause.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he knew very well that at this time of night it was no use to resist such a Motion as that which had been made; and he very much concurred with the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr.

    1877
    Plunket) in what he had said as to the practical lesson which was to be learned with regard to the value of concessions to the Irish Party below the Gangway opposite. During the progress of this Bill there had been no clause upon which the Opposition had been more obstinate, and, if he might be allowed to say so, more unjustifiable, and that in spite of the promises which had been made by those hon. Members. As to the construction which the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite said the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and some others had placed on the statement of the Prime Minister, all he could say was that if they placed that construction upon it he could not agree in that construction, and he felt sure that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not concur in it either. It had been said that it was quite plain that hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side had not placed that construction upon it, or else they would have followed the corollary to the declaration, and would not have continued to obstruct the clause. He thought, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) need not alarm himself that any such construction as that referred to was the construction which it was intended should be placed upon it, if such, indeed, was really seriously entertained by anyone.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he was in the House when the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put that construction upon the words of the Prime Minister to which reference had been made; and he had heard the Prime Minister, in reply to the hon. Member, get up and declare that the construction that had been put upon what he had said was correct. The Home Secretary might not have been in the House at the time; but whether he was or not he certainly did not correctly understand the meaning the Prime Minister put on his own words. As, however, there was a doubt in the matter, it seemed to him (Captain Aylmer) that it would be desirable that the Amendment which was to be introduced into the clause should be put on the Paper as early as possible, and that in the form of a Proviso which could be discussed in Committee, so that it would not be necessary to leave the matter over until Report. The Prime
    1878
    Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), although the Home Secretary thought differently. At any rate, the Committee should be allowed to discuss the question.
    MR. HEALYsaid, there was much force in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer). He hoped they were not to see in the attitude taken up by the Home Secretary anything like a break up in the Cabinet. They had heard a deal that night as to the differences in the Cabinet. With regard to the construction to be placed upon the words of the Prime Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone came forward as an impartial witness. It was a pity that the Home Secretary had not thought it his duty to come down to the House at 9 o'clock, when other hon. Members were in their places—at any rate, it might have been expected from him that he would have made himself acquainted with the opinion of his official Chief. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, did not seem to think it necessary to make himself acquainted with the views of his Leader. It was too much—far-reaching in their sweep as the powers of the right hon. Gentleman might be—it was too much that the Home Secretary should usurp the functions of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Healy) did not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) would be prepared to say that he would roll into one the functions of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. The Irish Members stood on the declaration of the Prime Minister, and they thought it of the utmost necessity that they should have the right hon. Gentleman's words in black and white—that they should have the independent reports of the newspapers, so that they might see what construction was to be placed upon the words which had been used, and what gloss had been put on them. Tomorrow they would see in black and white, in type as conceived by the newspaper reporters, what the right hon. Gentleman had said; and then they would know, in all probability, whether there really was, as had been alleged so often, a serious schism in the Cabinet with regard to this Bill. It was rumoured, in a hundred shapes and forms, that the Cabinet were divided on this Bill; and

    1879
    what had occurred to-night was an admirable illustration of the truth of those rumours. They found the Home Secretary coming here at 2 o'clock in the morning and endeavouring to eat the words uttered by the Prime Minister at 9 o'clock in the evening. The Prime Minister's words were interpreted not only by the Irish Members, but by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), in a sense entirely opposite to the view taken of them by the Home Secretary. They had all these people backing up the Prime Minister, and then they had the Home Secretary, with his grandiloquent announcement, with his full-blown emphasis, declaring that the Prime Minister did not mean what he had said.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he fully concurred in the desirability of having those portentous words of the Prime Minister put into black and white. A great many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House had made up their minds as to what action they would take with regard to them; and he should not be doing justice to his own strong conviction if he did not express, as clearly as he could, the astonishment and dismay with which, at an earlier hour, he had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as to the concession he proposed to make. It was, as he (Mr. G. Russell) was perfectly well aware, a matter of serious responsibility for a single Member of that House to separate himself, even for a moment, from a proposition made by the Head of the Government and recommended by the Viceroy of Ireland and the Chief Secretary. But much more weight was to be attached to the opinion of the right hon. and learned Home Secretary, who had charge of the conduct of this Bill; and, in spite of the consensus of authority recommending the concession which had been referred to, it was a matter of very serious regret to some of them that such concession should have been made. Ho was not, at that hour of the night, going to enter into any discussion as to the reasons which had led them to regard this clause with reference to the right of search as the very core and kernel of the Bill. They had evidence all around them of
    1880
    the sporadic character of the maladies which this measure was intended to grapple with, and of these maladies having developed in the profoundest secrecy. It seemed to many of them that the right of search contained in the Bill was the right and the power that would do more than any other provision of the measure to cope with these secret machinations of crime; and it was, therefore, a matter of astonishment and most profound regret to them to hear that any concession, however slight, was to be made on these clauses conferring the right of search. They had heard, however, that the Prime Minister's words were not to be interpreted as offering a concession. On the other hand, it was said—and ho had taken down the hon. Member's words—that 80 or 90 per cent of the clause had been conceded. That was surely a very alarming announcement from an Irish Member, and if that opinion was universally entertained by the Irish Members—and those Gentlemen, no doubt, were most competent to form an opinion upon it—it seemed to him (Mr. G. Russell) that the concession already stood condemned. He would not enter into the reasons which had induced himself, and those who believed as ho did, to give their most cordial support to this clause in its entirety; but he could not refrain from expressing a hope that the moment was not far distant when Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the transactions of this evening, would learn that every act of concession to Irish disloyalty—and ho did not say that concession in the interests of justice and mercy were not necessary, but every unnecessary concession—was the signal for a fresh outbreak of stematic and insolent obstruction in the House, and, too often, of outrageous crime out-of-doors.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he should be glad when hon. Members would be able to see the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government in print. It was perfectly clear to his mind that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could not have placed the construction it was said he had placed upon the words of the Premier. [Mr. HEALY: Yes; I did.] The hon. Member seemed to be positive, so positive that he could not believe his (Mr. Samuelson's) statement; but ho would give his reason for what

    1881
    he had said. The hon. Member had stated, immediately after the Premier's speech, that if he was right in the construction he put upon the words which had fallen from the Prime Minister, he would not support a single Amendment to the clause; that he would urge his hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendments, and that he would go into the opposite Lobby to any hon. Member who opposed the section; and yet the hon. Member had voted for almost, if not quite, every Amendment, and he had been, perhaps, the most prominent opponent of the clause. The hon. Member had thus proved, by his own action, that he, at any rate, did not attach to the Prime Minister's words the important meaning which it was now sought to give them. If the hon. Member for Wexford thought that the Premier's words bore that meaning, what confidence could they, for the future, place in any promise of the hon. Member?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had repudiated the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had uttered in his absence.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had not repudiated what the Prime Minister had said at any time. It would be most unbecoming in him to do such a thing. What he did repudiate was the interpretation which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had put upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman, or the interpretation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had said the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had placed upon the words of the Prime Minister.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be desirable for him to inform the Home Secretary what had taken place in his (Sir William Harcourt's)absence. When the Prime Minister, at the commencement of the proceedings this evening on the subject of this clause, took occasion to describe the effect of the sub-section which he proposed should be introduced into the clause on Report, in order that there should be no misapprehension or misunderstanding as to what that subsection was, he (Mr. Parnell) had taken the precaution to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would provide certain things, and the Prime Minister replied that it would. He would repeat
    1882
    to the Home Secretary the question he had put to the Prime Minister. He had asked whether they were to understand that the sub-section he proposed to produce on Report would provide that there should be no night search unless there was a suspicion that there was a secret society or a secret association actually sitting or carrying on its proceedings on the premises searched, and that when it was found that no such secret society, or secret association, was at the time carrying on its business, there should be no search? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the sub-section he proposed to introduce would be to that effect. And now, with regard to this Motion to report Progress, he (Mr. Parnell) wished to say he really thought the Homo Secretary had been standing in the way of the progress of the Bill. There had been no Amendments proposed to-night except those which had been of a very reasonable character. The Amendment they had just divided upon was an Amendment of a most reasonable character; and to show the way in which the Home Secretary met them, he would remind the Committee that he had stated that under the English Acts—he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned the Explosives Act—no provision was made for reports from policemen to their superior officers in cases of suspicion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the reports the police were to make were merely matters of discipline, and were regulated by the police authorities, and not by Act of Parliament. However, he (Mr. Parnell) found, under the Explosives Act, 28 Vict., c. 17—he believed at Section 73 —that—
    "Where a search is made without the authority of a warrant, if the entry he by an officer specially authorized by written authority other than a warrant, a report of such proceedings shall be forthwith sent to the Secretary of State."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is the case of a warrant.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was the case of a warrant authorizing search, not in a particular instance, but in a whole district.
    MR. O'KELLY: A general warrant.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was a general statement. In the case of the Explosives Act it was left to the Constabulary

    1883
    authorities to say where a report should be made, and where it should not be made. In the Act he referred to there was a provision compelling a report not only to the Central Constabulary authority, which hon. Members asked for under this clause, but to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary himself.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    VAGRANCY (re-committed.) BILL— [BILL 199.]
    (Mr. Pell, Mr. John Talbot. Mr. Bryce, Mr. Cropper, Mr. John Hollond.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Discharge of paupers).
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he had two Amendments to move, both framed with the same intention—namely, to strengthen the provisions which this Bill contained. In regard to both Amendments he might say that he regretted very much that, owing to the treatment which this Bill had received at the hands of the President of the Local Government Board, its original strength had been very much diminished. The Bill originally established something like a general principle upon which vagrancy could be treated, and, as he thought, established a great improvement on the present unsatisfactory system. To comment now upon that circumstance was like crying over spilt milk; but he thought he might yet try to make this clause more operative than it was in its present form. He therefore proposed, in his first Amendment, to declare that a casual should not be entitled to his discharge until the third day, his intention being to provide that a casual might be obliged to spend two whole days in the workhouse. He supposed one of the objects of the Bill was to deter vagrants from preying on the community, and if that was to be done thoroughly, it would be better to indicate that such men should remain for a substantial time in the workhouse; and he thought the way to administer a wholesome check to them was to say that they could not enter a workhouse, and simply stay at their own pleasure, on the way
    1884
    from one place to another, but should be detained for a substantial time. That was the object of his first Amendment, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, leave out "second," and insert "third."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'second' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he must object to the Amendment, because he did not think it desirable to give so wide a discretion to compulsorily detain a vagrant, and practically sentence him to hard labour, for the effect of that would be to deter vagrants from going into workhouses, and would give them an excuse for appealing to humanitarians for relief on the ground of the stringency with which they were treated in the Poor Law Unions. By the Bill, as it stood, a longer period of detention was secured by providing that vagrants might not discharge themselves until the second day, and that Sunday should not for this purpose be reckoned as a day. He could not accept the first Amendment of the hon. Member; but he should have no objection to accepting the second Amendment. He should be glad if the hon. Member could agree to that arrangement.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the Guardians in his own neighbourhood had no objection to the Bill, if it was clear that they had the power to discharge casuals within the limit of the Bill at their discretion.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the provision was that a casual should not be able to discharge himself.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that after what had been stated he should not divide the Committee, but should be content with what he could get.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "two occasions," and insert "one occasion."—{Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BRINTONsaid, he begged to propose an Amendment, to leave out "fourth" and insert "fifth" in line 21 of the clause. He thought it desirable to provide that a persistent vagrant

    1885
    might be removed from the casual ward to the workhouse, and that there might be sufficient time given for such a vagrant to pass under the review of the Visiting Guardians; and that the master of a workhouse might be able to detain a persistent or professional vagrant, and oblige him to go to the workhouse and perform, such work as other paupers did. Twenty-four hours, he thought, would be sufficient time to enable Guardians to make arrangements for a casual to be transferred. The object, after all, was to try to distinguish between persons who were going about the country as vagrants and merely poor people.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 21, leave out "fourth," and insert"fifth."—(Mr. Brinton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fourth' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he would not object to the Amendment proposed.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he had an Amendment for the purpose of enabling the Governor of a workhouse to discharge paupers before 9 o'clock in the morning, but not before 6. The clause provided that a casual would not be entitled to discharge himself before 9 in the morning; and there were many eases in which, owing to the nature of the work in the neighbourhood, it was desirable that casuals should be discharged before 9 o'clock.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause add the following Proviso:—"Nothing in this section shall prevent the Guardians of any parish or Union authorizing the discharge of any casual before 9 a.m., but not before 6 a.m., if in their discretion they think it advisable to do so."—(Mr. J. Holland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the hon. Member had failed to appreciate the character of the clause. The effect of the clause was that a pauper should not be entitled to discharge himself, but the Guardians could discharge him at any time they pleased; and the effect of the Amendment would be to restrict their authority instead of enlarging it.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he admitted that that was the effect of the clause; but he imagined that, under an Order
    1886
    made by the Local Government Board in 1871, Guardians would not be able to discharge a pauper except within the time prescribed by the Act; but he would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. PELLsaid, this clause materially altered the principle of the Bill; and although he was given to understand that, both in London and in several parts of the country, the Bill, as amended, in Committee, was considered likely to effect some reform in the present system, there were many who regretted, that the attempt made in the original clause to put these unhappy casuals more on the footing of ordinary paupers had failed. Still, as this clause promised to do some good, he had nothing more to say against its being inserted in the Bill.
    MR. BRINTONsaid, he cordially agreed with the observations of the hon. Member, and deeply regretted that in the amended Bill the pith of the original Bill was left out—namely, that if casuals should be found travelling about from place to place, they should not discharge themselves until they had appeared before the Visiting Guardians.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he begged to move the insertion of a new clause, with the object of facilitating the passage of casual paupers from the casual ward to the workhouse. He had been informed by the clerk to one of the Boards of Guardians that in one case he had remonstrated with a woman for travelling from ward to ward; and her answer was that she could not get into a workhouse, but was passed on from one casual ward to another. One reason for such cases as that was, he believed, that relieving officers were unwilling to admit casuals into workhouses because they had no power to detain them, for a casual admitted one night might leave the next morning of his own accord. According to his clause any casual, desiring to be admitted from the casual ward to the workhouse, would be enabled to be so admitted; but, in return,

    1887
    he would have to consent not to discharge himself till he had seen the Board of Guardians. He hoped the Committee would accept the clause.
    Amendment proposed, after Clause 4, insert the following New Clause:—
    (Admission from casual ward into workhouse.)
    "Upon the application of any casual pauper to be admitted into the workhouse from the casual ward, the guardians may, except in cases of illness, require as a condition of such admission that the pauper shall not discharge himself without reasonable notice, and reasonable notice shall not be deemed to have been given until the pauper has appeared before the board of guardians or the visiting committee of the Board: Provided, That during the intervals between the meetings of the board or visiting committee, any officer of the workhouse duly authorized by the board of guardians for the purpose may exempt any pauper either wholly or partially from the operation of this section."—(Mr. J. Holland.)
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was sorry that he could not agree to this clause. The argument of the hon. Member in favour of this clause had been in part met by the Amendments agreed to in Clause 4, which provided that when a casual came on a second occasion to the same ward he might be detained until a more distant day. If such arbitrary power as the Amendment proposed was placed in the hands of workhouse officials, it would lead to an objectionable diversity of treatment, and might practically mean 14 days' hard labour. He was sorry to find himself differing from his hon. Friend, who had studied this question so carefully; but he could not assent to the Amendment.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, if the hon. Member divided he should support him, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in thinking that this was an obligatory power; it was a permissive power; but he should say that, where the evils of vagrancy were felt, and an effort could be made to check it, the Guardians would bring this clause into operation. He thought the words "hard labour," used by the right hon. Gentleman, were rather exaggerated, for the work imposed on paupers would not be so hard as the work done every day by ordinary agricultural labourers, while they would
    1888
    receive the ordinary workhouse fare. Therefore, he did not think there would be a penal kind of treatment, and that the clause would he a very useful provision where vagrancy was on the increase.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 37: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 164.)
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.