Commons Sitting of 23 June 1882

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock.
MINUTES.—PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Health (Fruit-Pickers' Lodgings)* [214].
Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Eighteenth Night].

QUESTIONS.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—EXTRA POLICE AT MURROE, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any outrages have been committed in the parish of Murroe, I county of Limerick, within the past four months; if not, why a number of special police have been sent to that district; and, who will have to pay the cost of those extra police?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In consequence of information in the possession of the police, and which had been communicated to the Lord Lieutenant, the extra men were placed in the Murroe district I to prevent intimidation. The county of Limerick has been proclaimed under Section 13 of 6 Will. IV., and an extra police force sent there, and one moiety of the expense of such extra force is payable by the county.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL TEACHERS AND THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that National Teachers who attended the Matriculation Examination of the Royal University were curtailed of salary for the days they were so occupied; and, whether the Commissioners have on previous occasions invariably deducted salary I when teachers attended University Examinations; and, if not, whether the change of rule was adopted at a regular Board meeting, and formally approved of by the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that the salaries of the National Teachers who attended the Matriculation
  190
  Examination of the Royal University were curtailed for the days they were absent from their duties. This has been the rule and practice of the Board, and, so far as can be ascertained, was relaxed on one occasion only, when the teacher's vacation was curtailed by the number of days he had been absent.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA PAY—EX-CONSTABLE WALSH.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now state if Sub-constable Walsh, who was not paid off until after the date of Colonel Hillier's circular, will participate in the extra grant to the constabulary; and, if not, whether such refusal on the part of the Government would not be a contradiction of the terms of the circular?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him to his previous Question on this case on the 15th instant. The Circular grants the advantages to men who were in the Force up to the 24th of April; whereas Sub-Constable Walsh was discharged on the 13th of February and paid up to that date.

  ARMY—STAFF OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  MR. MOOREasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why a Colonel on the Staff of the Royal Artillery should not hold the appointment for the term of five years, as laid down in paragraph 145, Royal Warrant 1881; why does one Colonel of Royal Artillery, promoted only five days before another, continue his command for the full term of five years, when the other, promoted on 1st October 1877, is removed before completing five years' command, both officers having entered the service under exactly similar conditions; and, why are the following advantages given to those Colonels R.A. promoted before 1st October 1877:—An option of retiring before a certain date, with an increased pension of £50 a year, and the chance of employment if they remained at the end of a five years' command; and also an advantage of two years in age before being compulsorily retired?
  MR. CHILDERS: I could not answer my hon. Friend in minute detail without

  191
  wearying the House. But the general answer is that after the Report of Lord Penzance's Commission the Warrant issued by Lord Cranbrook in 1877 drew a line between colonels or lieutenant colonels of Artillery then serving, and those who might thereafter be promoted to those ranks, preserving certain supposed vested interests of the former. We have not departed from this principle in the Warrant of 1831, following the extremely careful Report of Lord Morley's Committee, in which the reason for all the changes is fully given. I must refer my hon. Friend to the two Reports, which he will doubtless peruse with much interest.

  NAVY—ESTABLISHED WORKMEN AT PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  MR. H. ALLENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, considering that about six hundred additional workmen have been entered at Pembroke Dock during the last fourteen months, and that the proportion of established men there is now considerably below that of other dockyards, he will cause an increased proportion of men to be placed on the establishment in that yard?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is true that a large additional number of workmen have recently been entered at Pembroke, and that thus the proportion of non-established to established men is greater than it was when the establishment was fixed in 1876. The establishment numbers, however, are based upon what is considered the normal or usual strength of the Yard, and have no reference to temporary increases of hired men, and there is no intention to alter the establishment. I may add that normally Pembroke has a greater proportion of established men to hired than the other Yards.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS IN COUNTY SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I Whether the Irish Executive have yet examined the facts relating to the arrest. Last week of Mr. Patrick Kelly, of Geevagh, county Sligo, on a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, dated and issued thirteen months previously, and whether, the Executive mean to detain Mr. Kelly
  192
  in custody; and, whether it is the fact that Mr. William Murphy, of Bonada, near Tubbercurry, county Sligo, arrested about six months since, Mr. Patrick Nangle, of Geevagh, county Sligo, and Mr. James M'Donogh, of Geevagh, county Sligo, arrested in February last, are still detained in prison under the Irish Coercion Act; and whether there is any reason to lead the Executive to hold them in custody any longer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has inquired into the facts of Patrick Kelly's case, and finds that he cannot at present order his release. The facts are as stated in the Question. Messrs. Murphy, Nangle, and M'Donogh are still in custody. His Excellency had their cases recently under consideration, and decided that he could not order their release at present.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the warrant under which they were arrested charged them with having been suspected of being associated in crime?
  MR. TREVELYANasked the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Vote on Account for the Public Service in Ireland he would call attention to the delay in the release of persons who were not suspected of being associated in crime.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—THE WITNEY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE—CASE OF LOUISA BUTLER, OF RAMSDEN, OXON.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Louisa Butler, a pupil in the Elementary School at Ramsden in Oxfordshire; whether, having regard to the decision of the School Attendance Committee at Witney that James Butler of Ramsden, in consequence of the fact that his earnings are very much in excess of those of an ordinary agricultural laborer, has no claim to have his children educated in the National School on the same terms as laborers' children; and, moreover, as the magistrates have several times confirmed this decision, the Education Department will withdraw their order that the child shall be admitted at the lower fee; and, whether, in spite of the decision of the local authorities, who have given much consideration to the case, the threatened

  193
  withdrawal of the grant by the Education Department will be carried out if the child in question is not admitted to the school on the lowest terms?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Two children of James Butler, of Ramsden, were admitted to the Ramsden National School, the only efficient school in the parish, at the ordinary fee of 3d. per week. Because the parent objected to his children cleaning out the school, out of school hours, the fees were doubled, and the children were repeatedly refused admission unless they brought double fees, or consented to clean the school. The parent has been twice summoned for neglecting to send his children to school; in the first instance the magistrates dismissed the case, and in the second adjudged him to send the children to school and pay the 6d. fee. The Education Department holds that the children cannot be compelled to do other than educational work out of school hours, and that the doubling of the fees as a penalty for not cleaning the school cannot be admitted. We have, therefore, decided that these children were wrongfully dismissed, and must be readmitted at the original fee. It must be remembered that there are thousands of parishes in which, as in this case, there is only one efficient school, at which all children resident in the district have the right to attend, and unless the schools are open to all on just and reasonable conditions, compulsion becomes impossible. The only effect of persistence in such requirements as were made in this case would be to bring a school board on the district.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTgave Notice next week he would put his Question in a somewhat different form.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS—THE RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What provision or guarantee at present exists in Egypt for carrying on the control and for insuring the punctual service of the public debt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As regards legality, the same provision or guarantee exists now as hitherto. As regards the temporary position of fact, the view of the Controllers is that their presence at the meetings of the Council would give strength to the Military
  194
  party, by seeming to sanction their pretensions, and would lower the influence of the Control. For this reason, the Controllers will abstain from presenting themselves at Council.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What was the date of the communication which apprised the Foreign Office that fifty European lives had been lost in the riots at Alexandria; has the attention of the Government been directed to subsequent reports which appeared in all the London newspapers, stating that very many more lives had been taken; and, has the Government ever asked for further information, or made any inquiry, as to the truth of the said reports?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is the hon. Baronet able to state to the House the number of Europeans who are known to have been murdered, up to the present time, in the recent massacre at Alexandria; and, if not, will he take steps forthwith to procure that information, and submit it to Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reply to the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), the date was the 12th of June. I have seen newspaper reports giving 50, 60, 100, 200, and 300 as the number of persons killed, but not specifically stating that more than 50 Europeans were killed. I stated yesterday a fact which may account for varying estimations of the number of Europeans killed—namely, that there are in Alexandria a vast number of persons who are Greeks by race, Christians by religion, Greek in tongue and in dress, but who are not Greek subjects, coming, as they do, from the Turkish Islands and the Turkish Coast of Asia Minor, and who may have been counted as Europeans in some lists of killed. Holding, as we do, as little communication as possible with the officers of the present Egyptian Ministry, we have not received their official list of Europeans killed. We have confined ourselves to asking for the most detailed information as to the British subjects killed, for whose death reparation will have to be made to this country. Six English-born British subjects and two Maltese British subjects have been reported to us as killed; and if any other British lives were known to have been lost the Consuls would, no doubt, have reported the deaths in conformity with the in-

  195
  structions addressed to them. The important question is not that of the total number of European lives lost—deplorable though that loss of life is—but that of the reparation to be exacted for the injuries to the British Consul and British subjects.
  MR. GIBSON: Has no inquiry been made of the Egyptian Government as to how many lives were lost, or was the hon. Baronet content with the first report? If he has remained satisfied with that up to the present time, will he now seek some fuller information?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: NO, Sir; we considered it our duty to ascertain the exact facts as to the number of British subjects who were killed. We do not think it our duty to worry our Consuls at a time when they have a very great deal to do to ascertain the exact figures as to the number of Europeans who were killed. The number of 50 was arrived at by an examination of the persons who were visited at the various hospitals. All the Europeans who were wounded are supposed to have been carried to the hospitals, which were all visited and searched.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Do I understand the Government to say that they do not think it desirable to take any further steps to obtain accurate information as to the number of Europeans massacred in Alexandria; or will the Government take steps to procure that information, and submit it to Parliament forthwith?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have stated the reason why there is great difficulty in arriving at the exact figures of the total number of Europeans who were killed, and I said Italian great interest of this country is to know the number of the English subjects who were killed. I think it is very possible that the Italian and other Foreign Governments have made similar inquiries as to their subjects.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then we are, I suppose, to underhand that the Government decline to take any further steps to procure information as to the number of Europeans killed?
  MR. BOURKE: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will inform us whether the British Consul, in reporting on the number of killed, has said anything about the difficulty of identifying the bodies of British subjects owing to the mutilation which has taken place?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: He has stated that there has been a difficulty in identifying bodies; but has not spoken of that difficulty in connection with the identification of British subjects.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Perhaps the Under Secretary will state whether there is any British Representative on the Commission of Inquiry into these lamentable occurrences?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: My right hon. Friend opposite has given me private Notice of a Question on that point, which I am unable to answer today; but I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject on Monday.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether it was true, as reported in The Times to-day, that some Egyptian soldiers picked out to do duty at Alexandria, and to protect life and property, were mainly instrumental in the destruction of life, and that that was shown to have been the case by the bayonet wounds on the bodies of the killed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have declined to answer Questions put without Notice; but I may say that I have, I believe, on two occasions—and certainly on one occasion—already stated in this House that, according to our information, the conduct of the Egyptian troops was good. We have no information confirming the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I do not mean the Egyptian troops, but the troops appointed to act as police.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have at present no information confirming the statement.
  MR. G. W. ELLIOT: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there are any matters in difference as to the administration of affairs in Egypt between that country and England; and, if not, why is the squadron in Egyptian waters, considering it has not succeeded in protecting life and property; and, since the new Egyptian Government has not been recognized by England, with whom will official communication be carried on in that country? I should also like to ask if the Conference sat yesterday; and, if not, is it a correct statement that Austria, Italy, and Germany have withdrawn, and that Austria took the initiative? I have not given Notice of the

  197
  last portion of these Questions; but, if the hon. Baronet desires, I will do so.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is an entirely different Question from what appears on the Paper; and it would be very undesirable I should answer it now. The hon. Member will, perhaps, recollect that I have already stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow County (Mr. M'Coan), the position at present occupied by the British and French Controllers in Egypt. In the present state of affairs it would not be possible to withdraw the Squadrons from Alexandria. I stated yesterday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), the conditions under which communications with the Egyptian Ministry must be conducted. Her Majesty's Agency continues to be in frequent and direct communication, with His Highness the Khedive.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What Government Her Majesty's Ministers recognize as the Government of Egypt at the present time, and who are the Ministers who compose it; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, apart from the protection given or supposed to be given by the Government of Egypt, and apart from the protection given by Her Majesty's Fleet, have taken any other measures to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in Egypt and in Alexandria; and, if so, will the Government say distinctly what those measures are?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I have just stated, Her Majesty's Agency are in frequent and direct communication with the Khedive. We do not recognize the new Egyptian Ministry. Her Majesty's Government are unable, as I stated on Friday last, to give direct protection to any British subjects in the interior of Egypt, a fact which does not diminish, the responsibility of the de facto authorities for their safety. The question as to the protection of British subjects at Alexandria is completely covered by the instructions sent by the Admiralty, to which I have several times referred. The communication of those instructions to the House will, of course, rest with the Admiralty.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg leave to give Notice that on Monday next, on going into Committee of Supply, I shall call she attention of the House to the Minis-
  198
  terial replies with regard to measures of protection for the Queen's subjects in Egypt; and move—
  "That this House regards with anxiety and alarm the position of the subjects of Her Majesty now residents in Egypt, and the persistent refusal of the Government to give any satisfactory assurances as to the measures which have been taken to protect them; and it urges upon the Government the duty and imperative necessity of taking prompt and decisive steps for the protection of their property and lives."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With respect to what fell from the hon. Baronet to the effect that Her Majesty's Agents are in direct communication with the Khedive, I wish to ask whether it is a fact that the Khedive issued formal letters of administration to the new Ministry, and declared that communications could only be made through the Foreign Minister?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government is in direct and frequent communication with the Khedive. They communicated with the Khedive in the past, and they continue to do so, only with greater frequency.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Official communications?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; official communications.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is true that the Porte is still protesting against the Conference; and, if so, whether it is still proposed to hold it; from whom it is intended to demand reparation for the British losses of life and property in. Alexandria; and, on whom we rely for the maintenance of peace and order there? I desire to ask, at the same time, whether the Circular or Memorandum, which is reported in the newspapers to have been sent forth by the Porte, is known to Her Majesty's Government to protest against the Conference; and, also, whether the Government can inform us whether the Conference was unable to meet yesterday in consequence of objection, or un readiness, on the part of Austria and Germany?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether it was intentional; but the Question, as it was drawn—the first Question—would imply that there has been a course of continuous protest on the part of the Porte. Perhaps that was not meant; because I could not affirm

  199
  that there had been such a course. But, undoubtedly, at the present moment, the Porte objects to the Conference; and, while we may fairly say we are aware of that fact, the Circular to which the right hon. Baronet refers has not been made known to us. We have no official cognizance of that Circular; and, undoubtedly, its terms are not before us. He asks whether we still propose to hold it? Yesterday, at the time when the Conference was expected to meet, several of the Representatives of the Powers had not received their definite instructions; but we have now the information that the instructions from England, France, and Italy had at that time been received. The instructions from Germany and Russia have now been received. With respect to the instructions from Austria, we have, up to the present moment, no definite information; but we have no reason to believe, from the information we possess, that Austria has any intention of maintaining an isolated position; and I have no doubt whatever that the intention of the Representatives on the spot is to hold a Conference. With regard to the Question whether it is intended to demand reparation for British losses of life and property in Egypt?—undoubtedly in this, as in all cases, and without prejudice to our liberty of action, a demand would be made on the de facto authorities in Egypt—those who were actually possessed of power—quite irrespective of any question as to recognition of legality, or any other public matter. For the maintenance of peace and order we rely, in the same way, in the first instance, on the de facto authorities. The permanent question of the maintenance of the peace, order, and tranquility of Egypt is essentially involved in the matters referred to the Conference; but while I say that we look primarily to the de facto authorities, yet instructions have for some time past been given to Her Majesty's servants on the spot, to enable them to meet the case of any failure on the part of these authorities.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Whom does the right hon. Gentleman consider the de facto authorities?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Those who are in possession of power in face of the world, and who are pretty well known to the entire world. We have no official relations with them, but they are those who are
  200
  set forth—and apparently there is no reason to doubt the fact—as the actual Ministers of the Khedive. But there is a question on which I should like to preserve entire liberty of action to the Government—the question whether the Commissioner of the Sultan, by accepting joint responsibility with Arabi Pasha at a certain date, likewise became a de facto authority. That is a question of importance, and one which we shall not allow ourselves to lose sight of.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The point to which I referred in my Question was that reference had been made to the joint responsibility of the Commissioner with Arabi Pasha. I will repeat the Question on Monday.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Are we to understand that a demand has been made for reparation, or that it is going to be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that we have not deemed it to be our duty or sound policy to enter into official communications with the existing Ministry in Egypt; but our Agents have received instructions on the subject of the demand referred to by the noble Lord.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked how, taking into consideration the statement just made that the Government did not recognize the de facto rulers of Egypt, that fact was to be reconciled with the subsequent statement that they were held responsible by Her Majesty's Government for the massacre of Her Majesty's subjects?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that is a Question on a matter of opinion. It appears to me there is not the smallest justification for it.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: On Monday I shall ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the number and amount of claims for compensation which have been made by British subjects in reference to the recent riots in Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think that that will be too soon. Up to the present but two claims have been received; but, of course, there will be a great many more.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give an assurance to Parliament

  201
  that they will not assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, and will withdraw from the Conference if this question is insisted upon by the other Powers? I also desire to know, whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House, in the early part of next week, a copy of the Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Ambassador accredited to the Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I observe that the hon. Member's Questions invariably assume a dual form—one Question is on the Paper, and the other he puts without Notice. Conforming myself to the practice of the hon. Member, I will say, in regard to the presentation of the Instructions as an isolated Paper, that, although those Instructions will undoubtedly come under the cognizance of Parliament at the proper time, we have certainly no intention of presenting them as an isolated Paper. In regard to the Question on the Notice Paper, as to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, I had hoped it had been made sufficiently clear by other answers; but I do not object to state that the subject of the control, the government, the neutralization, and the legal position of the Suez Canal is one which has never been referred to the Conference, and appears to us to be altogether outside the purpose of the Conference. That is all that it would be regular on my part to state. I have been asked what we should do if the other Powers were to insist upon entering into questions with regard to matters not before the Conference, and which no person has ever suggested were questions for the Conference? To that question, my reply is, that if we were to start with a set of negatives, or rather, of minatory declarations, I doubt, in the first place, whether such action would be consistent with international courtesy. In the second place, I doubt whether such action would contribute to the maintenance of harmony, of mutual confidence, and of identity of views among the Powers taking part in the Conference. And, thirdly, if we were to admit that the Conference could discuss one subject that was outside of the purview of the Conference, we should not be able to exclude the discussion of any others outside of that scope.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The Prime Minister having brought a general charge against me, I beg to ask per-
  202
  mission from the House to make a personal statement. Following well-known lines, I will simply deny the accuracy of the charge. I am not in the habit of always putting dual Questions. My second Question to-day arises out of the first. It is not contrary to the practice of the House to place important Documents, although isolated, on the Table. It was done in the case of the Joint Note of the 10th of January; and, in view of that fact, I repeat my Question to the Prime Minister, whether he cannot see his way, for the satisfaction of Parliament and the country, to place the Instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say that it is my duty to decline answering a, second time a Question I have already answered.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday next I shall ask the Prime Minister, Whether Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary at the Conference will be instructed to advocate that, within the limits of international obligations, the people of Egypt should have some Constitutional control over their own affairs?

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.
  MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will, in any future Returns of Evictions in Ireland, arrange to have a distinction made in such Returns between these two classes of Evictions, viz. Evictions on judgments or decrees in actions of ejectment for non-payment of rent; and, secondly, Evictions in cases where the tenant's farm has been purchased by the landlord, who subsequently brings an action of ejectment on the titlo grounded on the sheriff's deed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will consult with the authorities in Dublin on the matter, with the desire to meet the hon. Member's wishes.

  ARMY (INDIA)—RUMOURED REDUCTIONS.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for India, whether it is true that considerable reductions have quite recently been made in the Military Forces of the Crown in India; and, if. so, what those reductions have been?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: On the recommendation of the Commission on Army Organization appointed by the late Viceroy of India, and on the urgent and renewed representation of the Government of India that the strength of Artillery in that country was in excess of its requirements, especially as regards the very expensive branch of Horse Artillery, four batteries of that arm and one field battery, together with six batteries of garrison artillery, have been reduced. The number of mountain batteries has, however, been increased, and the strength of the 17 remaining garrison batteries has been increased from 80 to 108 men each. As regards the British establishment, no reductions or changes in the British Cavalry or Infantry in India have as yet been made. With regard to the reductions in the Native Army, four regiments of Cavalry and 18 regiments of Infantry have been reduced; but such an increase has been made to the 144 remaining regiments as to raise the total fighting strength in all ranks by a small number—about 30—the actual increase in privates being 2,366. One British officer has also been added to the establishment of each regiment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the noble Marquess tell us what further reductions are contemplated?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONanswered that the Report to which he had made reference proposed a very considerable reduction in cadres, but no reduction in the total number of men. The Government of India had also recommended certain reductions; but they had not yet been adopted.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—THE HAMILTON COLLECTION.
  LORD ELCHOasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, supposing a special grant has been given to the Trustees of the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures at the Hamilton sale, the sum in question amounts to less than the lapsed balances of the annual National Gallery grant for the last two years; whether the Trustees, consequent upon the recommendations of the Select Committee on the National Gallery in 1853, and the Treasury Minute of 1855, have hitherto always received the full amount of the said lapsed balances as special
  204
  occasion arose; whether, if such be the case, the present repayment of a portion of lapsed balances can be properly considered as a special grant; and, whether, supposing the sum in question to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the Trustees, such additional money as may be necessary will be given by the Treasury?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to this Question, I think my noble Friend has not been quite accurately informed. He wishes to know whether the sum the Treasury has placed at the disposal of the National Gallery for purchases at the Hamilton sale amounts to less than the actual balances of the National Gallery grant for the last two years. I have already said, and my noble Friend will feel there is some reason in it, that it is not my intention to enter into any statement of figures, but I may inform him that the sum is not less than the balances; on the contrary, it is considerably more.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, VOTES 6 AND 10—THE SHIPBUILDING POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid that there were now 80 Notices down on the Paper upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and of these only six bore any reference to the Navy. One stood in his name, and he was prepared to postpone it until the consideration of Vote 6 or Vote 10; but before doing so he requested an assurance from the Government that he would have an opportunity of discussing the important question involved at some reasonable hour of the night. He had moved for Returns which were essential to the proper discussion of Votes 6 and 10; but though they had been promised some time ago, they had not yet been laid on the Table. Unless the Returns were ready he should consider it his duty to go on with the Motion of which he had given Notice; but he suggested that it would be better to postpone the Votes in question until the Return was in the hands of hon. Members.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANquite appreciated the position taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and undertook not to take the Votes referred to on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the arrangement suggested a very

  205
  reasonable one. To discuss again, as they had done last year, such an important Vote as shipbuilding in the second week of August, would, however, be a scandal, and, therefore, he hoped the Return would be produced within a reasonable period.
  MR. GLADSTONEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had already given pledges that whatever took place with regard to other Business, Supply should be taken before the middle of July.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had also accompanied that with a promise to give an opportunity for discussion on Foreign Affairs. He wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the gravity of these questions, which had not been sufficiently discussed, and on which Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House felt a deep interest.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!

  POST OFFICE—WEATHER FORECASTS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will allow the daily weather forecasts issued by the Meteorological Office to be sent to, and exhibited at, every postal telegraph office throughout the agricultural districts for the benefit of farmers during the hay season and harvest?
  MR. FAWCETT: This subject has already been brought under my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Earp), and, according to a promise I gave at the end of last Session, I have very carefully looked into the matter to which the Question of the hon. Member refers. I regret that I do not see my way to accede to his request; because it appears that if the Government supplied telegrams gratuitously to those interested in agriculture, it would be impossible to refuse similar applications from those engaged in other trades. I believe that there would be little difficulty in securing the object desired. I understand that the Meteorological Office supplies the weather forecasts gratuitously to anyone who is willing to pay the expense of telegraphing them, which is very rarely more than 1s. If, therefore, the farmers in any district jointly subscribed, the expense to each would be very inconsiderable. The forecasts might be exhibited at the post office; and in the case of those farmers who resided within the area of
  206
  free delivery, the messages could be delivered at the small extra cost of 3d. for each additional copy.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister, Whether as Supply was down as the first Order for the Evening Sitting, the Government did not intend to proceed with the Prevention of Crime Bill at that Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid that arrangement was a necessity arising out of the Orders of the House. When the Prevention of Crime Bill was down for the Morning Sitting, it could not at the same time be put down for the Evening one. On Monday, neither the Prevention of Crime nor the Arrears Bill would appear on the Orders. If they did they must be taken.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked when the Motion would be made for precedence of the Notice of Motion over the Prevention of Crime Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he should like to offer an explanation. The Order with regard to the Arrears Bill exactly corresponded with what he had just stated, because it said that it should have precedence on every day on which it was set down. But he observed that the Prevention of Crime Bill was to have precedence from day to day. That being so it would be necessary to put it down for Monday, and on its being called to move for its postponement for the day.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked if it would not be sufficient if it were ordered to be taken on Tuesday.
  MR. GLADSTONE, said that he was afraid that could not be done, because it would break in upon the Rule laid down by the House. He was much obliged for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked if the case would not be met by moving the adjournment on Monday.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid they would consider the matter and see what could be done.
  MR. HEALYremarked that the Home Secretary had placed a new clause and five pages of Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Bill on the Notice Paper. It would be much more convenient for the discussion if those Amend-

  207
  ments were embodied in the Bill. Would the Government to-night take the same course with regard to the Prevention of Crime Bill as they took last night with the Arrears Bill—namely, pass it through Committe pro formâ to insert the Amendments and the new clause, and then order that it be re-committed in respect of the clauses which were not finished?
  [No reply was given.]

ORDER 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 22nd June.]
  [EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART III.

  GENERAL POWERS.
  Clause 12 (Application of Alien Act to aliens in Ireland).
  MR. O'SULLIVANrose to move an Amendment in page 6, line 43, at the end of clause, to add—
  "Except in oases where such alien has resided for more than six months in such district previous to any Government action in his case"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member would leave the clause as it stood before, and, therefore, could not be put.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN, as a point of Order, wished to know in what respect the Amendment was irregular?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment stated—
  "Except in cases where such alien has resided for more than six months in such district previous to any Government action in his case."
  MR. O'SULLIVANtrusted that he might be allowed in the Amendment to specify a district which would make the Amendment regular.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, when it comes on upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which, stands next but one on
  208
  the Paper, and which will come on in regular order. I have now to call upon the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins).
  DR. COMMINS DR. COMMINS moved, in page 6, line 43, at end, to add—
  "Provided, nevertheless, That the information upon which an order directing any alien with the United Kingdom to depart this realm may be made according to the provision of the said Act shall be an information upon oath sworn before a justice of the peace, and a copy of such information, together with the order made thereupon, shall be served upon the person against whom the same has been made before any warrant shall issue for his arrest or removal from the kingdom under the provisions of the said Act."
  This Amendment was necessary, he thought, to carry out the ordinary and time-honored forms of procedure in regard to aliens. The Alien Act contained some extraordinary powers. It gave power to the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State in England to arrest an alien without giving him any notice whatever of the information or complaint primarily lodged against him. It gave the Executive authorities power to arrest him without anything being done to advertise him of the fact that he was in danger, or giving him notice as to the charge he was expected to meet, further than the publication of an advertisement in The London and Dublin Gazette. He thought such publication was entirely insufficient, and that if the matter were left in that way great injustice would be done. It was very well known that The London Gazette was never read by anybody except persons who were interested in the list of bankrupts; and, so far as The Dublin Gazette was concerned, it was never read by anybody or seen by anybody except by the police of a district. It was issued to the different police-barracks, and the Constabulary were the only persons he ever heard of who received it or read it. Therefore, a notice published in The London or Dublin Gazette might have appeared for years before the person affected by it might hear of it. If such, a notice were still deemed necessary, there ought to be some provision made that a copy of The Gazette containing the notice should be forwarded to the person accused. It must not be forgotten that the Act not only jeopardized the liberty of the subject, but that a man engaged in business might be exposed

  209
  to arrest, and to the entire destruction of his trade or business, and the loss of his property. Nevertheless, there was at present no provision whatever in the Bill to enable him to protect himself and his property. He, therefore, proposed this Amendment, in order to adopt, in the case of aliens, the ordinary practice in every other case. If an action were brought against an alien, and his liberty or his property placed in jeopardy, a writ must be served on him before a single step could be taken. If a charge were made against him of having violated the law, he must be summoned, or must receive due notice to enable him to meet the charge; but in this Act there was nothing whatever to give him the slightest notice that he was to be made a victim. There was nothing beyond the theoretical idea that a notice published in the official Gazette went all over the world; whereas, as a matter of fact, it was seen by nobody at all. Even a fox was fairly hunted; but in the case of an alien there was to be nothing to give him notice of the danger he was incurring; and the moment a warrant was issued by the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, he might be arrested and committed forthwith to prison, or sent out of the country. After the arrest was completed, there were certain provisions, good enough in their way, to enable the prisoner to defend himself; but it would then be too late. He ought to have had notice before matters had gone so far, and before the warrant was made out for his arrest, and before the order was made out calling upon him to leave the country. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would see that the Amendment that he proposed was not an unreasonable one. The 2nd section of the Act of 1848 made the refusal of an alien to obey an order he might never, in this case, have seen at all, a misdemeanor. But in that case he was liable to be taken before the ordinary Justices of the Peace. He might be brought up on a warrant, or summoned before the Justices; and in either case he was committed for trial by a jury. By the present Bill the right of trial by jury was taken away, and with it the right which foreigners possessed under former similar Acts of trial by a jury de medietatalinguœ. Under the Act of 1848 an alien was entitled to be tried by a jury, half
  210
  of whom were foreigners, in order that foreigners might see that no injustice was done to him. By the present measure that right under the Act of 1848 was taken away, and under the 2nd clause, any alien sent for trial would not have the right of being tried by a jury at all; and even if the tribunal could be termed in any sense a jury, it was a jury upon which there would not be a single foreigner. He thought an alien brought under the operation of the Bill was entitled to ask for the old protection which had always hitherto been given to an alien. Therefore, he impressed upon the Home Secretary that the acceptance of the Amendment would not in any way embarrass his action in removing obnoxious foreigners, while it certainly would afford some protection to the foreigner himself. We claimed in this country to be a civilized people, and we had no wish to make laws that would debar us from exercising the ordinary well-known and established principles of fair play as between man and man, and setting traps to catch persons who were not acquainted with our law. Although all subjects and aliens living in the country were supposed to know the law, they did not, as a matter of fact, and very few foreigners would be acquainted with the proceedings which might be taken against them. Therefore, on the grounds of ordinary and natural justice, he appealed to the Home Secretary to provide some such protection as that which was proposed to be given by the Amendment before he rendered aliens liable to summary arrest and summary conviction without a hearing before the magistrates. Under the Bill, as it stood, an alien would be liable to summary deportation out of the country; and all he (Dr. Commins) asked was that before he was rendered liable to these arbitrary Acts, he should have fair play. If, upon due investigation, it should appear that he was a dangerous man, then by all means let him be required to leave the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add—"Provided, nevertheless, That the information upon which an order directing any alien within the United Kingdom to depart this realm may be made according to the provision of the said Act shall be an information upon oath sworn before a justice of the peace, and a copy of such information, together with the order made thereupon, shall be served, upon the person against whom the same has been made before any warrant

  211
  shall issue for his arrest or removal from the Kingdom under the provisions of the said Act."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the fox should be fairly hunted. He only wished to compel him to break cover. It would be found on examination of the Act, that the accused had all the security he wanted. First of all, the order was to be made, and it was then to be published in The London and Dublin Gazette. He did not attribute much value to advertising in The London and Dublin Gazette, and in that respect he agreed with the hon. and learned Member; but the hon. and learned Member would see that the important words in the Act were these—"If any such alien shall knowingly and willfully refuse obedience to the order." Nothing would be done to him at all unless he knowingly and willfully refused to obey the order. It was quite obvious that it must be brought to his personal knowledge before anything could be done with regard to him. Then, if he did not want anything to be done to him at all, it was a simple thing for him to go away. If he did not choose to go away, he was not left entirely at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, because he might at once appeal to the Privy Council, either in England or Ireland, to suspend the execution of the warrant and the Privy Council was bound to give him a general summary of the matters alleged against him and to allow him a reasonable time to prepare his defense. That was all that was really done. If ton. Members opposite wanted to do more they would really defeat the object of the Act, which was necessarily a summary process. It was not a judicial process in its inception. It was an Executive act by a Sovereign Power, which was directly responsible to the Sovereign of a foreign country for the treatment of the subject of that country under the Act. It was not a judicial clause at all, and therefore he objected to the introduction of Justices of the Peace into the question. They were not persons who ought to have anything to do with the execution of the Act. There were provisions included in the clause to prevent any un-
  212
  just or improper exercise of the right of imprisonment. There was power given in the 4th section of the Alien Act to admit to bail; but it was to be exercised by the Judge of a Superior Court, and the Judge of the Superior Court might discharge an alien or send him to prison for a month. To that extent, and to that extent only, was the judicial authority introduced; but to begin the process by requiring every information to be laid before the Justices of the Peace would give the transaction a character which ought not to belong to it. It was a directly executive act authorized by Parliament. Unquestionably, at the time when Blackstone wrote, it was understood that the Crown had power to do these things without the authority of Parliament. He knew that it was a matter under dispute; but it was understood that the practice at Common Law, at the time Blackstone wrote, was that the Crown could do these things on its own authority. Since the Act of 1803 that Prerogative right, if it ever existed, had disappeared, as Prerogative rights did when they once became merged in Acts of Parliament. They had only now the Act of Parliament to consider; but still it could not alter the fact that it was a Prerogative right regulated by Act of Parliament. Therefore, with great respect to the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), he could not agree with the proposal that the initiative step should, be taken before the Justices of the Peace. As to the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's proposal, it was fair enough that the order should be brought to the knowledge of the individual accused; but that was already provided for in the Act under the words "knowingly and willfully refuses obedience to the order."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that this was a matter between the Sovereign of this country and the Sovereign or Representative of the country to which the alien belonged; but his objection to this matter was that there was a liability of abuse. There was nothing in the Act of 1848 to insure that the person so removed must be an alien. There might be an abuse of the power of the Crown in two respects. In the first place, it was provided that the Act should apply to aliens who at the time of the issue of the order should—

  213
  "Knowingly and willfully refuse obedience to the order and remain within the realm contrary to the order."
  And after the expiration of the time limited in such order, it was provided—
  "That it should be lawful for any of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State or for the Lord Lieutenant or other chief Governor and so forth to imprison, and cause every such alien to be arrested and committed to prison there to remain without bail or main prize until he or she was taken in charge for the purpose of being sent out of the realm under the authority hereafter given."
  There was nothing so far in the Act, and nothing in any part of the Act, to prevent abuse on the part of the Crown in carrying out the powers of the Act against persons who were not aliens. The Crown were entitled by the provision he had just read, practically speaking, to arrest and imprison, in the first place, any person against whom such an order might have been issued, and there was no appeal against that order except to the Privy Council, the Privy Council being the Executive authority. Surely, in a grave matter of this kind, the Privy Council were, in fact, a part of the Crown, and in so serious a question there should be some check upon the unjust or too stringent exercise of the power by the Crown. Her Majesty's Government were taking power to arrest an alien and to put him into prison, and they afterwards took power to eject him forcibly from the country. He wanted to know what remedy there was against the unjust and unlawful abuse of either of these two powers? The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend provided—
  "That there shall be an information upon oath sworn before a justice of the peace, and a copy of such information, together with the order made thereupon, shall be served upon the person against whom the same has been made before any warrant shall issue for his arrest or removal from the Kingdom under the provisions of the said Act."
  Of course, that implied that information on oath should state, on the oath of the person making it, that the accused was an alien; and it provided a very suitable check on the abuse of the authority of the Crown so far as it went. He (Mr. Parnell) did not think that it provided a complete check; but, as far as it went, it provided a necessary and proper check upon the abuse of the initial action of
  214
  the Crown. But supposing the Crown did not arrest the person, or supposing they did not take and send him away from the country by force, or supposing that they did send him away from the country by force, what remedy had he got, if he were not an alien and were unjustly treated by the Crown? What remedy did this Act, passed evidently with great haste and precipitancy, give to an injured person in such a case?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought he could remove the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, although he admitted that it would be a strong and formidable one if it were well-founded. What he contended was that if a person who was not an alien were arrested under this Act, he would have his habeas corpus. He could move for his habeas corpus, and the Crown could only justify itself under the Act in declaring the man an alien by distinctly showing that he was an alien. No doubt he might be committed to some prison under the Act without bail or main prize; but if he could show that he was not an alien, he must be discharged. His arrest by the Crown could only be justified by showing that he was an alien.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would have his action against the persons by whom he was wrongfully imprisoned.
  MR. PARNELLwas of opinion that the committal of an injustice under the Act would require to be carefully guarded against. He understood that the Act of 1848 was not used against any alien. Therefore, they had no practical example of the manner in which these powers would work.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid there were examples under the former Acts which amounted to the same thing. It must be borne in mind that these Acts had been in practical operation from 1793 to 1824; therefore, they had been continually in operation for 30 years.
  MR. PARNELLwished to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could produce any precedent justifying the principle he had just laid down, that a person arrested under this Act, or under the previous Acts, had a right to apply to the Courts for a writ of habeas corpus? In such a case, would the onus of proving a man to be an alien

  215
  be thrown upon the Crown, or would the onus of proving that he was not an alien be thrown upon the prisoner himself? These were all points upon which the Committee was very much in the dark, and if a precedent could be produced it was most desirable that they should have it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that under the successive Alien Acts, from 1793, and which were continued down to 1824, there must have been, although he could not cite them at that moment—instances of action under the Acts for breaches of the provisions contained in them, because one of the Acts contained a recital that the action of the previous Acts had been found to be expedient and beneficial. Therefore, there must have been action under them. Presumably, everyone in the Kingdom was a natural-born subject, and no natural-born subject could be put in prison without being entitled to be brought out on habeas corpus. The person who wrongfully held him in prison, whether a gaoler or a private individual, must answer the writ of habeas corpus by showing that in point of law his detention was justifiable, and that he was entitled to keep the man in prison, if the truth of the return to the writ was examinable. If an alien, or a person called an alien, was arrested the inference was that the arrest was justifiable; but it rested with the Crown or the person making the arrest to furnish prima facie evidence that the person arrested was an alien and came within the provisions of the Act. Of course, the prisoner would be allowed to disprove any prima facie evidence by proving that, in fact of law, he was not an alien, and if the Crown could not give proof that he was an alien within the meaning of the Act, his discharge would follow. No Court would refuse to take cognizance of such a case, and a man unjustly arrested would be entitled to bring an action against any person who had arrested him unlawfully. He would have full title to all the protection the law could afford. He thought he had met the question which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had asked.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was glad that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had answered the
  216
  question, because it was exceedingly important that persons who were not aliens should not be arrested under the provisions of this measure. The same point as that which had been put by his hon. Friend had occurred to him (Mr. Dillon). He understood the Attorney General for Ireland to say that a man arrested under the Act would have power to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, and it would then become incumbent on the Crown to produce prima facie evidence that he was an alien within the terms of the Act. But the point he wanted to get at was the kind of evidence it would be necessary for the Crown to produce. If a man wanted a writ of habeas corpus in Ireland, they might depend upon it that it would be very difficult for him to get a decision in his favor from the Court of Queen's Bench in that country. He was induced to believe that the Court of Queen's Bench would be strongly inclined to refuse a writ of habeas corpus if they had any colorable justification for doing so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Crown was to produce prima facie evidence that a man was an alien and came within the terms of the Act. Would the order of the Lord Lieutenant be primâ facie evidence? What would be taken by the Court to be primâ face evidence? What did the Government contemplate to be primâ facie evidence that a man was an alien, so that it might be known under what circumstances a writ of habeas corpus might be obtained? There were other points of greater interest which he wished to raise; but he should like, in the first instance, to have an answer to that question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that an alien was one who was not a natural-born subject of the Crown, or a foreigner who had not been naturalized in this country. The Crown would have to adduce evidence that a man was an alien, or, in other words, that he was not a natural-born subject, and that he had not been naturalized, and the accused would have an opportunity of disproving that evidence.
  MR. DILLONasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that the Crown might be called upon to prove that an individual was not a natural-born subject, or that he was a foreigner

  217
  who had not been naturalized? Would the Crown be called upon to prove that?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had never been subjected, since he was a Law student, to such a series of categorical questions of this nature. At the same time, he admitted the right of the hon. Gentleman to put them, and he would endeavour to give an answer as plainly and as lucidly as he could. Of course, it must be understood that he was speaking now from old recollections of these matters, and from knowledge obtained years ago. He had already stated that no one could be arrested under this Act, unless he was an alien within the terms of the Act. He had pointed out, further, what an alien was—namely, that he was neither a natural-born subject, nor a foreigner who had been naturalized in the country. It was incumbent on everyone who arrested another to prove that the arrest was justifiable; therefore, it would be necessary for the Crown, in arresting a man under this Act, to adduce primâ facie evidence that the man was not a natural-born subject of the Crown, or that he was a foreigner who had not been naturalized. Of course, a subject who had denationalized himself lawfully was a foreigner.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the best course he and his Friends could take would be to prepare an Amendment embodying their views on the matter, and submit it to the Government. The question was a very important one, but it might be raised on an Amendment to be brought up on a later stage of the Bill. There was just one other point. The Home Secretary said he thought it was a reasonable contention that an individual who was required to leave the country should have the fact brought home to his knowledge, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that the words of the Act, "knowingly and wilfully," would be sufficient. That would go a long way towards meeting the objection which had been raised; but if the right right hon. and learned Gentleman read further on, he would find these words—
  "Or if any such alien shall refuse or neglect to pay due obedience to such order, or shall be found in this realm, or any part thereof, contrary to this order."
  218
  The hon. and learned Gentlemen would notice that the word "or" came in after the words—
  "Knowingly and wilfully refuse or neglect to pay due obedience to such order."
  Those were very important words—
  "Or shall be found in this realm or any part thereof, contrary to the order aforesaid, or after the publication of the order."
  The publication being a publication in The London and Dublin Gazette. What he wanted to know was this. Whether the mere fact of an alien being found in any part of the Realm within the time limited in the order, or after its publication, would be sufficient to justify his arrest and removal by force; and, secondly, whether it would bring him under the 2nd clause of the Act, and permit of his being treated as if he had been guilty of a misdemeanour?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that having looked attentively at the matter, with all the facts before him, he should feel inclined to reply to the question in the negative. At the same time, it was a matter that ought to be well considered; and he would promise the hon. Member that it should be considered—namely, whether a man ought to have due notice. He believed, however, as the hon. Momber asked his opinion, that the Act secured due notice being given. If it did not, it was a matter for further consideration, and it should be looked into. He wished to point out that there was a Statute still in force—the Statute of Will. IV. c. 6 & 7—which required the masters of all ships to declare what aliens were on board, or had landed from their vessels, and the masters of such ships were under penalties if they did not make such declaration. Aliens, also, who came from abroad, were bound under penalty to give their name and descriptions, and register themselves to the officers of the Customs. He wished to call the attention of the hon. Member to the Statute. No doubt it had not been acted upon, but it still remained a Statute, and was capable of being enforced. Under its provisions every master of a ship and every alien was bound to make such a declaration, and it was also necessary to provide a certificate of his departure from the Realm which was required to be transmitted to the Secretary of State. He thought that Statute was worthy of the

  219
  attention of hon. Members in connection with the subject, because it was a Statute actually in force.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was quite clear, from the use of the disjunctive "or," that either knowingly and wilfully disobeying the order, or being found in the Realm after the publication of the order, would render a man liable to be imprisoned.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he had already promised to consider that matter.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, there could be very little doubt that, under the clause in the Act, if an alien remained within the Realm after the issue of the order, or after its publication, it would be open for the Lord Lieutenant to take one of two courses in regard to him. He might put him in the hands of a Queen's Messenger, and by force remove him out of the country, or he might send him to prison. The value of the judicial power of appeal would entirely depend on which of those two courses the Executive Government chose to take. In other words, the writ of habeas corpus could not come into operation unless the Lord Lieutenant took the optional course of putting aliens into prison. But supposing that the Lord Lieutenant, instead of putting him into prison, placed him in the hands of a Queen's Messenger, and forced him to leave the Realm, what power of appeal would an alien have who had been removed out of the country? In either case the power of appeal could not come into operation unless the Lord Lieutenant put an alien into prison. If he resorted to the second optional course—namely, of forcible deportation, then he (Mr. Sexton) contended that the alien had no remedy at all, and it was not necessary that the country to which the alien was deported should be his own country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was not the case, because under the 3rd section of the Alien Act, if a man deported were not an alien, he could return and employ all the remedies provided by the law against the persons by whom he had been unlawfully deported. The hon. Member was now, however, entering into a different point from that which the Committee had been discussing before. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) asked what remedy a man would have who was
  220
  forcibly removed from the country, and who was not an alien?
  MR. SEXTON: A person ordered to leave the country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if such a person was a British subject, he (Sir William Harcourt) would not like to be in the position of the Secretary of State who had forcibly removed him. When he came back he would be able to bring an action for having been dealt with unlawfully. He would have all his remedies at law.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not fail to see the valuelessness of the writ of habeas corpus to a person placed in such a situation.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: He would have his action.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the man might be an alien, or he might not. He might be an alien in no sense dangerous to the peace of the country, and if he was deported he could not remedy himself by obtaining a writ of habeas corpus. He might have the remote and satisfactory mode of remedying the injury done to him which was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman showed the complete inutility of the writ of habeas corpus.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had mentioned the writ of habeas corpus in answer to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who wanted to know what a man would be able to do who was unjustly arrested and detained. The question now put was altogether different, and admitted of another answer. By the 3rd section of the Alien Act, an alien could be dealt with either by putting him in prison if he refused to leave the country, or by forcibly removing him from the Realm. The hon. Member would see that whenever it was proposed by the Secretary of State to deal with him in either way, if the alien alleged any excuse for not complying with the order, he could appeal to the Privy Council. Within a few moments of his arrest he could lodge an appeal to the Privy Council, whereupon the matter would be heard, and the charges against him would be taken into consideration. It would be lawful for him to summon and examine witnesses on oath before the Privy Council, and to be heard by counsel before the

  221
  same tribunal. Therefore, he had full and complete protection, and if he was forcibly deported, he could return and bring his action.
  MR. SEXTONthought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given a strained reading of the provisions of the Act.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the whole matter was made very clear. Where no justification was pleaded by the alien, the Secretary of State or chief Governor had power to direct a Queen's Messenger to deport him forcibly from the country; but it was the duty of the officers in whose custody a person arrested under that clause was, to communicate his alleged excuse or justification, and they were bound to make it known to the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant, as the case might be. Therefore, the moment action was taken against an alien, all he had to do was to allege his excuse, whereupon the person in whose custody he was was bound to communicate it, and it operated as a supercession of the warrant until the matter was inquired into by the Privy Council. That prevented any immediate and arbitrary action on the part of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was evident that the writ of habeas corpus would not apply to cases of that kind, because the Lord Lieutenant might instantly direct a Queen's Messenger to deport the man who had been arrested from the country without any excuse or justification being lodged with the Privy Council. There was another point upon which he desired to have some information. Suppose the alien alleged an excuse, and an appeal was made to the Privy Council, and the alien in the meantime was put in prison, what would be the consequence? The Judges would have power to bail him or release him; but the power of bail simply allowed him to be at large, and the power of release did not come into operation until the man had been in gaol. Therefore, the power of the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary would remain in force, and he should like to know whether the hearing of the appeal before the Privy Council was a public or a private one?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should not like to say off-hand. It would not be before the Judicial Com-
  222
  mittee of the Privy Council, but the Privy Council formed in the ordinary way—namely, the Lords of Council.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, those provisions did not imply a public hearing. There were provisions in the Act that the man should be able to call witnesses before the Council, and also that he might be heard by counsel; but those provisions did not imply a public hearing, and it would be extremely dangerous if the question of the deportation of an alien who was the subject of a foreign country were made a sort of "Star Chamber" inquiry in this country. He thought there ought, at any rate, to be a public hearing. Altogether an inquiry before a Privy Council would be a very doubtful matter, because the Privy Council consisted, practically, of the Colleagues of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who made the order, and it was, in reality, an appeal from himself to himself. He thought the result of an appeal to the English Privy Council, and still more to the Irish Privy Council, would be extremely doubtful. It was most unlikely that a body constituted as the Privy Council was in Ireland, and not remarkable for displaying its independence, would reverse any order made by the Lord Lieutenant. He would ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who was smiling so significantly, and who was, no doubt, intimately acquainted with the action of the Irish Privy Council, if he could cite any instance in which the Privy Council had overridden the power of the Lord Lieutenant? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could do so, he (Mr. Sexton) would be disposed to advise the withdrawal of the Amendment; but, at the present moment, he was bound to believe that an appeal to the Privy Council from a decision of the Lord Lieutenant was valueless. He had already pointed out the extraordinary difficulty of proving whether a man was an alien or not, and if the onus was thrown on the Crown of proving a man to be an alien, the difficulty of the task would be increased. For instance, a man went from Ireland to America, and remained there for five or seven years, or for a sufficient time to enable him to take out letters of naturalization but, nevertheless, he did not avail himself of that right. He would, therefore, if he returned to this country, not be an alien. There might

  223
  be other reasons which might be considered by the authorities sufficient proof that a man was an alien or citizen of America, and yet the whole of them might be founded on a misapprehension of the facts. In such a case as that which he had cited, how were the authorities to prove that a man was an alien? Then there was the case of Irish-born children of Irishmen emigrating to America. The children might be young when they went to America, and the father might or might not have taken out letters of naturalization. What, therefore, would there be to show that such persons, if they returned to Ireland, were citizens of the United States? How did the Government propose to deal with such a case r The question whether an Irish-born person, or a person of Irish extraction, who had been for years in America, was a citizen of the United States, was often a very complicated matter; and it was, therefore, very essential that the Amendment should be adopted. Then why should not a sworn information be required in all cases? It was a most odious thing that a man should be allowed to make a memorandum on a post-card or on the back of the envelope of a letter that such and such a person was an alien, and was guilty of treasonable practices. Before the Lord Lieutenant was required to act there should in every case be sworn information. What harm could it do? It might not be necessary to disclose the information; but all that the Irish Members wanted was that the Lord Lieutenant should be moved in a regular manner. He had already pointed out that the writ of habeas corpus would be illusory and ineffectual in many cases, and that the appeal to the Privy Council was simply an appeal from the Lord Lieutenant to himself.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the objection of the hon. Member was that a man who was not in reality an alien might be arrested under a warrant and removed out of the country. The hon. Member asked what was to be done in the event of its turning out that the man was a British subject? The Habeas Corpus Act dealt with such a case, and made provision by the 11th section for dealing with a case in which a man had been unlawfully transported out of the country. One provision was that no pardon should be granted for such an
  224
  offence, and all the provisions of the Act showed how carefully the exercise of these powers must be guarded. The Secretary of State would be exposed to tremendous penalties if he acted illegally in removing a man who was not an alien; and the hon. Member might be certain that this clause of the Bill would not be acted upon unless there was strong primâ facie evidence that the man proceeded against was an alien. If an error were committed, there were very large remedies in the hands of the man who might have been improperly dealt with. It did not follow that the authorities would act upon every scrap of information supplied to them. They would proceed to make inquiries. The best proof of that was the fact, already brought to the notice of the Committee, that no action against an alien was taken under the Act of 1848. That showed either that the Secretary of State was not very anxious to imprison every man with or without cause, or that the persons who came under the provisions of the Act got out of the way. The fact was that, even before the Act of 1848 passed, the gentlemen who were likely to have been dealt with under it rapidly disappeared, and there was no one left against whom it could be enforced. It was hoped that what happened then would happen again now. The gentlemen who felt it likely that they would be dealt with would disappear, and no case would arise in which the provisions of the Act would be put into execution. In point of fact, the clause was a deterring clause, and it was meant to be so. The hon. Member asked how the question of alienage would arise? In all probability, the way in which it would arise would be this. The Government would find a man misconducting himself, and they proceeded to deal with him according to the law, when he immediately alleged that he was a foreign subject—a Frenchman or an American—in order to defeat the law. The instant he set up that defence he was brought under the Alien Act, and could be proceeded against under that Act. That was the way in which his alienage would be proved. There were people going about the country saying—"I cannot be touched because I am the subject of another country." The moment they said that, after this clause was passed, they came within the provisions of the

  225
  Alien Act, and that was the way in which these gentlemen who, generally speaking, because they were citizens of another country, imagined that upon that ground they could come over here and injure the citizens of this State, could be dealt with. The moment they boasted of their alienage, they must not complain if they were dealt with as aliens, and that would be the ordinary way of proving their alienage.
  DR. COMMINSwas bound to say that the answers given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the various objections which had been urged were very ingenious, but altogether wide of the mark. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that inconvenience might arise, and it was intended to meet that inconvenience that the Amendment was proposed. Nothing could be more illusory than the remedy of the Habeas Corpus Act, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested. He would like to know how many times within the last 50 years had persons been enabled to avail themselves of the protection of that Act? Surely hon. Members must be aware that it was one of the most expensive and troublesome of the remedies provided by the law. Suppose a person to be arrested at the Land's End, or in the North of Scotland, who wished to sue out his writ of habeas corpus. He would have to employ solicitors, instruct counsel, and altogether go through a process so expensive, that in many cases he would be unable to pay them. He thought that must be regarded as no little obstacle in the way of using this futile and illusory remedy. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the protection supposed to be afforded to persons arrested under the clause, by proof being required that they were knowingly transgressing the order, was also valueless. That protection did not exist. The Home Secretary himself stated that aliens found anywhere within the Realm would be liable to commitment, although they might not be aware of the order. The next remedy was, that persons arrested might present their case to the Privy Council. But no such thing as a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council existed in Ireland at all. The deliberations of the Irish Privy Council were secret—the examination of witnesses, and documents before that
  226
  body would be a secret proceeding; and even if counsel were to attempt to support such a claim before the Council, it would do very little good, because nothing like a fair and open trial could be obtained. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also dangled another kind of illusory security before the eyes of the Committee. He said if the warrant were wrongfully served, a man might bring his action against the person who so served it. But it was well known to all lawyers that by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, any officer thus serving a warrant might pay 40 s. into Court, and he would then be completely protected, unless it could be proved that he had obtained the warrant for the express purpose of injuring the person arrested. Not only would the officer be protected in this way, but he would be able to recover costs against the unfortunate individual who had the audacity to sue him for his wrongful act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said he should not like to be the Secretary of State who executed such a warrant. But surely the Law Officers at his side had sufficient knowledge of the law in Ireland to know that in the case of "Burn v. Hartington," the Court of Appeal decided that the act of an Inspector of Police, acting under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, was an act of State, and that a person acting under such authority was protected. That would be the case in Ireland now; the order of the Lord Lieutenant would be held to be a good defence, and the individual would have no remedy whatever. Then, as to his remedy in England; if he had any at all, he would have to fight the case up to the House of Lords. But it was said that the alien would have sufficient notice before he was arrested, because the Government had taken care to provide for that in the 21st section of this Bill. The 4th subsection of that clause was thus worded—
  "The production of a printed copy of the Dublin Gazette purporting to be printed and published by the Queen's authority, and containing the publication of any proclamation, order, or notice under this Act, shall be conclusive evidence of the contents of such proclamation, order, or notice, and of the date thereof, and in the case of a proclamation that the district specified in such proclamation is a proclaimed district within the meaning of the provisions of this Act mentioned in the proclamation, and that the said proclamation has been duly promulgated."

  227
  Hon. Members would see that this order declaring a man to be an alien would be held to be conclusive that he was one, and it would be quite enough in answer to his writ of habeas corpus even if he were a wealthy person, or his friends were willing to assist him in issuing the writ. Under these circumstances, he pressed on the Government to introduce something into the Act which would obviate the difficulties he had pointed out. A great and manifest injustice would be done to any person who was arrested for disobeying an order of which he knew nothing—or who was liable to be sent out of the country simply upon a notice appearing in The Dublin Gazette declaring him to be an alien, under circumstances which exposed him to the most expensive litigation, and to the ruin or injury of his property. They had had some indication of how this Alien Act would be applied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said there were persons who went through the country and who said they did not care for the law because they were French or American citizens, or as the case might be; and he added that it was these people whom the Alien Act would reach. But he would like to know of any single offence or violation of the law of the country, from the most minute of which the law took cognizance up to high treason, which an alien might commit in this country, and with regard to which he could claim immunity because he was an alien. Why, every Civil and Criminal Law was as much binding upon an alien as it was upon a natural-born British subject, and he was, of course, liable to the same penalties. The law in force in Ireland was extensive enough to follow him into every relation of life, almost into his very thoughts. He hoped it was not in vain for Irish Members to offer Amendments to the Bill, founded on the assumption that there still remained in that House, and amongst the people of England, that spirit of fair play which would not allow men to be subject to wrong and annoyance unless they had done something to violate the Criminal Law of the country, and placed themselves thereby outside the protection which that spirit of fair play was supposed to throw around them. With the object of preventing the injustice, wrong, and annoyance he had described, he
  228
  must press upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. WARTONprotested against the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed upon the 4th sub-section of the 21st clause of the Bill.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it was very evident that a man could be imprisoned under this Bill for a month without bail or mainprize before he could apply to the Court for a writ of habeas corpus—or rather, before he could be released under that Act. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that was not so.] In that case he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what was the meaning of the 4th and 5th sections of the Alien Act? He understood the meaning to be that the Court of Queen's Bench might take bail for persons who had been on commitment imprisoned for one month after the order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it rested with the discretion of the Judge to take bail immediately on commitment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORit was very unfair to retain the power of keeping a man in prison instead of sending him out of the country.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the best course with regard to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon was to ask leave to withdraw it, in order that some Proviso might be framed which would show the way in which they desired the Court of Queen's Bench should be enabled to act. In the Act of 1848 this question was left open, and there was nothing to show that the Court would not be compelled to hold that the existence of the order of the Lord Lieutenant or Home Secretary was sufficient to entitle the gaoler to detain the person in custody. Irish Members wanted that the onus of proof should be thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary, as the case might be, when application for bail or discharge was made by a prisoner detained under such order.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, before he acceded to the request of his hon. Friend, he wished to press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that some notice should be given of the order of the Lord

  229
  Lieutenant beyond the publication in The Dublin Gazette, which would bring home to the person affected by it the position in which he was placed before he rendered himself liable to imprisonment for disobeying such order. He thought a provision of this kind was only fair, because, as the matter stood, a man might be sent to prison without knowing what the charge against him was. A man ought to be made acquainted beforehand, by a copy of the order being sent to him by post or otherwise, that he would jeopardize his liberty by not obeying the order of the Lord Lieutenant.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite agreed that a man ought to know when an order was made against him.
  MR. WARTONpointed out that the words of the 2nd section of the Act were in themselves a sufficient protection, inasmuch as an alien could not be imprisoned unless he had knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the order.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), he proposed to move that this clause should not apply to an alien with a passport. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would know that a very large number of people from abroad visited England and Ireland annually, with the praiseworthy purpose of seeing their relatives and visiting the homes of their fathers. He had known many cases of this kind. But this year there was to be a National Exhibition in Dublin that would probably be visited by large numbers of persons from abroad, anxious to see what progress had been made of late years in Irish industries. Now, he did not suppose for one moment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to keep these persons away from Ireland by the fear of coming under the Alien Act; and therefore he trusted that the Act would not be allowed to apply to any person who could show his respectability by the production of a passport, say, from the Foreign Department in Washington or elsewhere.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at the end, add "But the provisions of this Clause shall not apply to any alien who is furnished with a passport by the Foreign Office of his own country."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would not be safe to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it was the case that in some countries passports were granted without much inquiry being made into the character of the applicant. It was well known that when passports were asked for they were granted almost as a matter of course; and, that being so, to make the mere possession of one sufficient to exempt a foreigner from the operation of the clause was a proposal which Her Majesty's Government could not entertain, inasmuch as it would defeat the object they had in view. But surely the hon. Member could not believe that the Government had any desire to thwart or embarrass the very access of foreigners to this country or to Ireland. Such a thing would be utterly opposed to all reason and principle, and the idea was therefore unworthy of a moment's consideration. Her Majesty's Government were extremely averse to using the powers of the Alien Act except under the pressure of great danger and necessity. Her Majesty's Government had every reason to abstain from using that Act in an arbitrary manner. Such a course would place them on bad terms with Foreign States whose friendship they wished to preserve; and therefore he regarded public opinion both at home and abroad as affording a much better security for the just administration of the Alien Act than the adoption of any Amendment of the kind put forward by the hon. Member for Galway. He repeated that it would be unsafe to adopt this Amendment, because an alien might have obtained a passport six months before he became a member of a secret society; and yet, according to the Amendment, the possession of it was to be held as conclusive proof of his bona fides.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he saw the force of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and feared that the acceptance of the Amendment would lead to the results indicated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at the end, add "Provided, That no order for the removal of an alien shall be made except upon information in writing and on oath."—(Colonel the O'Gorman Mahon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, as he read this Amendment, it was in substance the same as that which the Committee had just discussed and, at the request of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), allowed to be withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was very anxious to meet any Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the consideration due to it; but, as the Chairman had pointed out, this matter had already been discussed. The truth was the information was not the basis of the order. The action was that of the Lord Lieutenant, and it was entirely inconsistent with the whole construction of the Act to convert it into a judicial proceeding. It was not a judicial but an Executive proceeding to be taken, if the Lord Lieutenant thought fit, immediately upon the information which might be conveyed to him; and therefore he ventured to point out that it was inconsistent with the Act to require that the information should be upon oath before the Judges.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had given as much attention as possible to the three pages of Amendments which had been put down to this clause, and with regard to the three next in order upon the Paper, he must point out that they were inconsistent with the principles and machinery of the Act, and could not therefore be put.
  MR. PARNELLunderstood from this ruling that it was impossible for the Committee to alter the provisions of the Alien Act of 1848, by adding Provisoes at the end of this clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that was not by any means the case. He had simply explained why the Amendments referred to could not be moved. The hon. Member could move a Proviso that was not contradictory of the principle of the Act.
  MR. PARNELLconfessed he had in view the amendment of the Act of 1848, and was at a loss to see in what way that was to be done upon the ruling of the Chairman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, although the hon. Member for the City
  232
  of Cork could propose an Amendment to the Act by way of Proviso to the clause, he could not, of course, do it in such a form as would establish two jurisdictions for the purpose of doing the same thing. It would be impossible to give this jurisdiction to the Justices, because that, as he had already shown, would be substituting judicial for the Executive action which the Bill contemplated.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that there was no Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was only reasonable to conclude that an alien who had been resident in the country for a year was not a person dangerous to the Realm. No foreigner could reside here for a year, or even for a week, without attracting the attention of the police and coming under the notice of the Government. That was especially true with regard to Ireland, where an Act was in operation putting the power of summary arrest in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of any person whose freedom was dangerous to the public peace. He repeated that no stranger could set his foot in any part of Ireland and remain there 24 hours without having the inquisitiveness of the police exercised upon him—no person could alight at a railway station, even in the daytime, without finding himself the subject of suspicion on the part of the police. Therefore, he contended that in a country so efficiently policed, an alien who had resided there for a year could not reasonably be regarded as a person dangerous to peace and tranquillity. A person of this class would probably have gone into some business and have otherwise given hostages to society for his good behaviour. For these reasons, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at the end, add "Provided, That nothing in the said Act contained shall affect any alien who shall have been residing within this realm for one year next before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that if the Amendment were adopted a man who might frequently have been in the hands of the police would not

  233
  come under the operation of the clause if he had resided in Ireland during the year preceding the passing of the Act. Her Majesty's Government could not, therefore, agree to this Amendment. From his own knowledge of the state of Ireland he was aware that there were persons who had been engaged upon missions from abroad for more than two years, now resident in the country, and it was for those persons that the clause was specially intended. The hon. Member said these aliens might possibly be engaged in business; but he (Sir William Harcourt) feared that they were engaged in the very kind of business that the Government wanted to get rid of, and that the short period named in the Amendment of the hon. Member would not afford any satisfactory guarantee of their good behaviour. Now, when the Act of 1848 was passed, the considerations to which the hon. Member had referred were quite as strong as they were at present, and the requisition then was a residence of three years for the purpose of exemption. It seemed to him, having regard to the state of things in Ireland, that three years was not too long a period to take at the present time, because the Government were aware that disturbances, due to alien influences, had been in operation for two years and more. It was difficult to understand how anyone could think that the Government wished to disturb men engaged in honest occupations in Ireland, or anywhere else; the idea was incredible that any Government, in the face of the world, would desire to interfere with the lawful occupation of aliens.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, Irish Members feared that the re-enactment of the Alien Act would be productive of great hardship. Not only in England, but in Ireland, there were large numbers of aliens of respectable character and good conduct, who had from time to time returned from America and become the holders of small farms and businesses throughout the country. These men had advanced opinions upon political questions, on the Land Laws for instance, as well as upon self-government and other matters; and they were, in consequence, very objectionable to the local landlords, and in many cases to the local police, who were under the control of the local landlords. Now, in the administration of the Act, the Lord
  234
  Lieutenant must be guided more or less by the information which he received from the Constabulary; and it followed that it would often be difficult for him to resist the making of an order with regard to an alien of the class mentioned, if he were to receive a report from the Constabulary that he was a person of troublesome character and that the magistrates of the district wished to get rid of him. And it would happen, in consequence, that many such men would be removed, have their homes broken up, and their businesses ruined simply because of their opinions. They would, suffer for their opinions upon the political questions of the day. It might be said that aliens coming to this country had no right to take part in these matters; but, as regarded the expression of opinion, he did not see why they should not take the part they did, particularly those who, having been in the position of exiles, had returned to their own country and intended to live there as peaceable citizens for the rest of their days. The class of people he referred to formed a valuable element in the Irish population, for during their sojourn in America they had acquired all the energy and aptitude in business which distinguished the citizens of the United States; and they formed, in a manner, centres of good example in work and other matters, which were very desirable to be imported into a country where, unfortunately, the qualities he had mentioned did not prevail, so far as a large portion of the population was concerned. If this clause were not amended, the Lord Lieutenant would find it almost impossible to resist the appeals made to him to deport these families in large numbers, and great hardship would consequently arise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said the Government knew that some aliens had been engaged in influencing the disturbances in Ireland for two years and more, was, no doubt, speaking upon good authority, and from sources of information superior than those which he (Mr. Parnell) possessed. But even if that were so, and it were necessary to remove those persons, the Act ought not to be applied to the large masses of people who had returned to Ireland and intended to live there, who were certainly peaceable and industrious citizens, but who had rendered themselves ob-

  235
  noxious to the local authorities simply on account of their political opinions. These were the motives which had prompted his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to bring forward this Amendment. It was not done for the purpose of limiting the clause, or delaying the Bill; but for the purpose of securing that hardship should not be inflicted upon a large and respectable class of people in Ireland, whose return to their native country it was desirable to encourage.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork hardly applied to the Amendment before the Committee, which simply dealt with the length of residence which would exempt an alien from the operation of the Act. The Amendment proposed—
  "That nothing in the said Act contained shall affect any alien who shall have been residing within the realm for one year next before the passing of this Act."
  But the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would be equally applicable were the period of residence fixed at three years. Now, he had as much sympathy for the class of persons mentioned as the hon. Member for the City of Cork himself. No one more than he felt the desirability of preserving a class of men who should become the centres of industry and good feeling in a country where there existed, unhappily, too much poverty and want of success in trade; and nothing could be farther from the intention of the Government, or of any Government, to disturb such men when they returned from abroad and resettled in the country of their birth. But if there were such, persons in Ireland, were they not already protected by the Bill? Undoubtedly, if there were any disposition on the part of the police to traduce them to the local authorities, or any disposition on the part of those authorities to act harshly towards them, they could go before the Privy Council; and if it were made clear on the evidence of themselves, or their friends, that false accusations had been made against them, the conduct of the authors of those accusations would be strongly reprobated. Therefore, he said, the class referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork were secure under this Act.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the sympathy he had expressed towards a deserving class of persons, and for the language in which he expressed his approbation of the generosity of the Irish people in America who had sent home money to the relatives they had left behind, and which it was to be supposed would add to the prosperity of the country. Now, on the latter point he could not agree with him, because the money sent over from Ireland to America during the last two or three years had almost entirely been spent in paying the rack-rent extorted from the tenantry by Irish landlords. As a matter of fact, the only money sent from Ireland to America during the time named had been for the purpose of putting down a system of plunder on the part of landlords, which was incompatible with anything like prosperity in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the arguments of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would apply to the term of three years' residence as well as to the shorter term advocated by the hon. Member for Sligo; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said also that the class of persons in question, who had been three years in the country and established a regular domicile or business, were protected already under the Act. But surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be acquainted with the fact that the returns of such persons to Ireland took place, not alone for the period of a year, but for two or three months. That being so, a large number of them could not be included within the period named in the Amendment before the Committee. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not acquainted with the details of rural life in Ireland; but this was the real position of these returned men. They came from a country where there was absolute liberty of the subject, and where they were in the habit of expressing their opinions with perfect freedom, to a country where the powers of the police bordered on omnipotence. They were, in many cases, the centres of Constitutional and legal agitation, and he could tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing would contribute more to the success of the Irish cause, by means of orderly and regular self-organization, than a

  237
  large importation of these well-trained Irish-Americans into Ireland. But these men, accustomed to speak with the freedom of the country in which they had lived, became, on their return, the immediate mark of the police in their district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that these marked men had the right of appeal to the Privy Council. But let the Committee consider the position in which the Privy Council would be placed, by remembering that the action against them was taken, first, by the police, and then by the Lord Lieutenant. The Court of Appeal, to which they were referred by the Home Secretary, would, in affording the protection he had spoken of, have to overthrow both the action of the police and the action of the Lord Lieutenant. In order to see the difficulty which stood in the way of an appeal of this kind on the part of an aggrieved alien, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had only to suppose himself, for a moment, to be a Member of the Irish Privy Council, assembled to consider the action of the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, under such circumstances, would probably say that the case of the individual was a hard one; he appeared to have saved a little money in America and had invested it in a farm in Ireland; he was, no doubt, a peaceable man; but in cases of the kind, the interest of the State must be considered, and the authority of the Lord Lieutenant supported. Accordingly, he considered that the Privy Council in Ireland would be a Court for sanctioning, and not overthrowing, the decisions of the Lord Lieutenant; and, therefore, he was quite unable to see why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take so firm a stand in resisting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed entirely to have forgotten that these aliens could be reached under Clause 9 of the Bill, as well as by the clause then under the consideration of the Committee, inasmuch as they would come under the head of strangers. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give the Amendment further consideration with a view to its adoption.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was extremely anxious, on any point, where it could be safely done, to miti-
  238
  gate the severity of this Act. He had, however, an objection to doing these things off-hand; but he would consult the Irish Government as to whether or not the period of three years could be safely shortened in the case of the persons whose claim to exemption had been put forward by hon. Members opposite. If the hon. Member for Sligo was satisfied with that assurance, he would suggest that he should withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was disposed to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and he took the opportunity of pointing out that he would not have pressed his Amendment on the attention of the Committee had it been the case that proceedings against aliens were to be taken in any public form, and upon sworn information.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that the 9th clause, referred to in the course of this discussion, would not be sufficient to deal with the class of persons intended to be reached by the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which had reference to the treatment of persons who might be imprisoned under the provisions of this section, which he hoped would also meet with the favourable consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There were two kinds of imprisonment that an alien might be exposed to. There was the imprisonment which might be inflicted on him until he could be removed from the Kingdom; and, secondly, there was the imprisonment which might be inflicted on him as a misdemeanant, in consequence of his being convicted of being found in the country; and he submitted that both these kinds of imprisonment should come under the Proviso he was about to move—namely, that the severity of the treatment should not exceed that inflicted under the 67th section of "The Prisons Act of 1865." He might mention that the treatment in the first division was sufficiently severe. A person subject to it was only allowed two hours' exercise out of the 24, and, moreover, was not allowed to converse with his fellow-prisoners. He had seen that during his experience at Kilmainham. There were several persons in the

  239
  first division whose condition was most miserable, from the fact that they were only permitted to walk round their court for two hours a-day by themselves, the warders always watching them. He begged to move the Amendment next upon the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at the end, add "Provided, That any alien imprisoned under the provisions of the said Act shall be treated during such imprisonment as a misdemeanant of the first division, within the meaning of section sixty-seven of the Prisons Act, 1865."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was quite disposed to consider the matter of the treatment of aliens under the Act in the most favourable sense, because the object which Her Majesty's Government had in this portion of the Bill was not punishment—it was security of removal. It was not contemplated by any part of the Act that there should be any actual detention in prison, except so far as it was necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act, which was speedy removal. He had not had an opportunity of carefully considering the bearing of the Amendment upon the various matters that would be affected by it; but he was in a position to assure the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he looked upon the question very much from the same point of view as he did, and was willing to consider the best way in which his suggestion could be carried out.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would be right to give an alien, except in circumstances of an extremely grave character, some time to make the arrangements necessary for his departure. There could be no doubt that loss and injury would result to any alien who was compelled in a summary manner to leave the country. They had heard of the exceedingly summary way in which some Foreign Governments acted in matters of this kind, by ordering persons to cross the Frontier in 24 hours; but as he was sure this was not a precedent which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to follow, he had named 30 days as the limit within which the departure of an alien should
  240
  take place under this clause, and he trusted his proposal would be acceded to by the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at the end, add "Provided, That the time limited for the departure of any alien in any order made under the said Act shall not be less than thirty days."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he agreed that the Act should not be carried out so as to inflict unnecessary hardship upon individuals; and, no doubt, due consideration would be shown in cases where a business was being carried on. But it might be remembered that one class of persons to whom the Alien Act would be applied would be men who were coming over to carry out some dangerous design, and the object was to get rid of them, so to speak, before they came here. There might be men on the way from some foreign country, whose object was to take part in a forcible resistance to the law, in armed insurrection, or in plots of various kinds. This clause and other parts of the Bill were intended to deal with persons of that kind, and hon. Members would see that if a period of 30 days were adopted in the sense proposed by the hon. Member, that period would afford ample opportunity for carrying out the object they had in view. This would be entirely inconsistent with what the Government contemplated; and although there might be cases susceptible of milder treatment, where it would be the duty and interest of the Government to show consideration of the kind indicated, yet it was quite plain that there might be others where no such considerations could be allowed to weigh. For these reasons he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather in the habit of judging whole questions by extreme cases. He had just asked the Committee to consider in what cases it would be most likely that this clause would be put into operation, and then he said it would most likely be put in operation, not only against men who were engaged in no business, but against persons arriving in the country whom it was desirable to send back again. The

  241
  right ton. and learned Gentleman had referred to two classes of persons; but there was a third class who would be exposed to the operation of the Act—namely, those who had already established themselves by residing in the country for a considerable time. He wished to know whether the force or scope of the clause was to be governed entirely by the extreme cases put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or whether the Committee would make any provision whatever for the protection of persons of a different class? The Committee would observe that no time was specified in the Alien Act as having to expire between the issue of the order and the execution of it; and it would be, therefore, quite within the power of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, or of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in England, to issue an order in The Dublin Gazette for a person to leave the country within an hour of the appearance of such, order. Now, having regard to the fact that there was a third class besides the two classes of persons referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who might suffer the greatest hardship by an order being made for their sudden departure, he would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider whether 30 days, or such lesser time as he might deem fit, should not be allowed to elapse between the issue and execution of an order for removal unless it appeared to the Lord Lieutenant, who should so state it in the order that the immediate execution of the order was essential to the preservation of peace and tranquillity in Ireland. He suggested that this compromise would allow the Home Secretary or the Viceroy to apply the power of instant removal to any dangerous alien, while, at the same time, it would allow time to elapse in the case of aliens residing in the country who could not reasonably be supposed to be very dangerous to dispose of their property or make such other arrangements as were most beneficial to their interests. The Committee would understand that some provision of the kind was most necessary in the case of persons who had established themselves in farms or businesses, their interests in which could not with advantage be disposed of at a moment's notice. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to adopt the suggestion he had made.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought it might be provided that except in the case of those aliens who had arrived in the country within one month of the passing of the Act, 10 days, at least, should be given for winding up the affairs of aliens ordered to leave.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not like to decline to consider any suggestion that was offered in a reasonable and moderate spirit; but he would point out to hon. Members opposite that it was highly improbable that any alien whom it would be safe to allow to remain for a month would be one whom the Government would be disposed to deport. He was, therefore, afraid that what the hon. Member had suggested would not be any security at all, because it would only vary the order. Of course, the circumstances of different cases must vary, and if the Lord Lieutenant thought a man might be safely granted a few days to prepare to go away, there was no reason to induce him to do otherwise than grant it. But short notices of departure were not so infrequent as might be supposed. He would take the case of Ambassadors, for instance, who were sometimes ordered to leave the countries where they were resident within 24 hours. Such cases had occurred where the animosity existing between two nations was very violent, and the relations between them much strained. Napoleon once ordered the English Ambassador away from Paris at very short notice. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), an alien might have been long resident in the Kingdom without anyone suspecting that he was a dangerous person. He might be a member of one of the secret societies at which the Government were aiming; but it was the essence of those societies that until some clue was obtained they could never tell what they were doing. It might be that a person, otherwise harmless, was an extremely dangerous character in this sense; and it would, therefore, be dangerous to allow him to remain for 10 days or a fortnight in the country. However, he was quite willing to consider the suggestions which had been offered from the other side of the House, and to see whether, consistently with the object of the Government, anything could be done in the direction indicated.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that the Act of 1848 itself met the point which had now been raised, because under it, if an alien could urge any reasonable ground why he should be allowed to remain some time longer in the country, he had a right to represent it immediately to the Privy Council, who would advise Her Majesty on the matter without reference to what had taken place before the Secretary of State.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was, of course, aware that there were two classes of aliens that the Government wished to reach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, at an earlier period of this discussion, had alluded to one of these as persons who went about the country proclaiming that they were aliens and that they could not be touched. There were men in Ireland who had done that. But it must be remembered that they acted quite openly, and were engaged in what, from the point of view of hon. Members on those Benches, was legitimate agitation. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to these persons he touched a large class, in which he (Mr. Dillon) confessed he had considerable interest. And the reason why he pressed this suggestion on the right hon. and learned Gentleman was because he had stated that the Act would bear upon that class of aliens. He thought the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not touched the case made out in favour of this class of persons. But supposing it were discovered that one of this class of persons was making himself obnoxious to the local magistrates. Surely, with all their enormous powers, the police in Ireland could keep their eyes upon him both by day and night as the best means of insuring that he should not do any mischief while he was winding up his affairs previous to being kicked out of the country. With reference to the argument of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), he would point out that although the case of an alien might be brought before the Privy Council, the individual could be kept in prison until the decision appealed against had been modified by the Privy Council, and of course a man was not in a position to wind up his affairs when undergoing imprisonment for an indefinite period.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  244
  the Home Secretary might safely make a concession in favour of persons suddenly called upon to wind up their affairs, because, practically, he had all the powers he wanted for the purpose of dealing with dangerous characters without the present clause. For his own part, he thought it would be better to put people in prison, who were engaged in dynamite operations, than to send them out of the country; whereas in the case of persons engaged in business in Ireland, if it became necessary to send them away they should have some time allowed them for winding-up their affairs, and therefore he thought that some words to this effect should be inserted in the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had said that the Amendment should be fairly considered, would see that a wide difference separated the class of persons engaged in dynamite operations from those who were engaged in business.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what he understood was that the Government desired power to call upon any person whose conduct appeared dangerous to the safety of the Realm to leave the country with all possible despatch. If the Government were to be intrusted with these powers, they surely could be intrusted to allow a person a reasonable interval in which to make his exit; but when they were asked to allow a person 30 days in which to leave, or, in other words, to mature their nefarious designs, they were simply making the Alien Act an absolute farce.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment he had to move, in page 6, line 43, provided an alternative form of appeal of a somewhat definite character, and at a different stage of the proceedings to that provided by the Act of 1848, where a person was permitted to appeal to the Privy Council against the Lord Lieutenant to show cause why the order of the Lord Lieutenant should not be countermanded, or the time extended for his removal. His Proviso sought—
  "That an order shall not be made under the said Act until the prescribed notice has been given to the person against whom such order is directed, who may thereupon before such order is made and at a time to be fixed in such notice appear personally or by counsel or solicitor before the Secretary of State or the

  245
  Lord Lieutenant, as the case may be; and, if such person shall satisfy the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant that his presence in the realm is not dangerous to the peace or tranquillity of the realm, or any part of it, no order under the said Act shall he made against such person."
  Under the Act of 1848, a person whose removal had been ordered, as he had said, had the power of appeal against that order to the Privy Council; but in the meanwhile he might be imprisoned, or he might be sent out of the country. There was also another distinction which was provided in the alternative method of appeal that he proposed. It was very fair on the face of it that a person whose removal was ordered should have the right of selecting whether he should make his appeal to the person who ordered his removal, or to another body, such as the Privy Council. The person who had ordered his removal, be it the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, would have all the information before him as to why the removal was ordered. The Privy Council might not have such information, and they might be in the same position of judging as to the merits of a case as the person who had ordered the removal. It seemed exceedingly probable, to his mind, that in many cases where removal was ordered the person whose removal was ordered would be able to satisfy the authorities that no just cause existed for such order. Why not give the man the power of appealing to the Lord Lieutenant against his removal, and to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant, or whatever the authority might be, that there existed no cause for such order; and, in the words of the Amendment,
  "That his presence in the realm is not dangerous to the peace or tranquillity of the realm, or any part of it."
  He thought this was a reasonable Amendment, and he trusted the Government would see their way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add—"Provided, That an order shall not be made under the said Act until the prescribed notice has been given to the person against whom such order is directed, who may thereupon before such order is made and at a time to be fixed in such notice appear personally or by counsel or solicitor before the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant, as the case may be; and, if such person shall satisfy the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant that his presence in the
  246
  realm is not dangerous to the peace or tranquillity of the realm, or any part of it, no order under the said Act shall be made against such person."—(Mr. Darnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must point out that in the form in which the hon. Member had moved the Amendment there was not an alternative appeal provided, because, in point of fact, it made this the only form in which an order could be granted; and, therefore, the manner of form was inconsistent with the Act. That, however, was a technical objection, because it was capable of being removed by altering the form of the Amendment. What the hon. Member desired, as he understood, was that it should not be necessary to go through all the operation of appealing to the Privy Council—that, in point of fact, a man might satisfy the Secretary of State himself that he was unjustly detained, and that he should not be required to wait until the Privy Council could meet to decide upon his case; that he might, if he could, be able to satisfy immediately the Secretary of State that the mistake that had been made, that the information upon which the order of removal had been made, was not well founded, and that he ought at once to be discharged. The hon. Gentleman would observe, if he would look at the 3rd clause of the Alien Act, that that was really provided for. If a man was arrested, all he had got to do was to lodge an appeal to the Privy Council. That at once stayed all proceedings. It stayed the warrant for his removal, and it stayed all action upon the warrant, and it brought the alleged alien under the cognizance of the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State. Of course, the appeal to the Privy Council practically set forth the cause of the person's arrest. It practically brought under notice why further time should be given an alien before his removal; why he should be discharged, and why he should not be deported. The hon. Gentleman had said that the man had to be kept in custody until the determination of the Privy Council, unless, in the meantime, the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant should consent to an order for his release. As he (Sir William Harcourt) read the Act, a man need not wait for

  247
  the determination of the Privy Council. He might be discharged by the Secretary of State himself before any action was taken by the Privy Council. The object which the hon. Member had in view was really attained by the Act itself, because it was there provided that he might bring his case before the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State might discharge him before the Privy Council was brought into operation. No one could suppose that the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant, if they thought a man could establish his innocence, would desire that the appeal should go to the Privy Council; but they would at once order his discharge. He really did think that the object of the hon. Gentleman was attained without the Amendment, and therefore he hoped he would not press his proposal.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his object was not entirely gained, although he confessed that he had not noticed the Proviso which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out. His object was partly gained by the Proviso which the Home Secretary had named. What he wished to prevent was the imprisonment of a person pending the appeal, and the 3rd section of the Alien Act did not quite get rid of that necessity. A person could still be imprisoned, and although it was not desirable to go back to the question of bail, he could not help thinking it would have been desirable to have given Justices the power of taking bail in cases of aliens. As a matter of justice, bail ought to be accepted pending the investigation of the case by the Lord Lieutenant or the Privy Council, and pending the statement upon such investigation that would be made by the persons whose removal was ordered. It did seem a very harsh provision that where they found an alien whose removal was ordered, perhaps at a moment's notice, and without an explanation, he should be thrown into prison and kept there pending the result of the appeal he might make to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to the Lord Lieutenant, which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, could take place. Some Proviso should be inserted in the Bill in which, in certain cases, bail might be taken by the magistrates. It did not appear to
  248
  him that that would be overriding the authority of the Lord Lieutenant at all. There was absolutely no provision commanding the Lord Lieutenant to take bail, and the only way in which bail could be taken was a very cumbrous and costly one—namely, by means of an appeal to the Queen's Bench. They all knew that in case of an application being made to the Queen's Bench a month might very easily elapse before the application would be decided. He had had some little experience of applications to the Queen's Bench. First of all a provisional order would be made, and then that provisional order would have to come up for confirmation before a person could be released. This procedure took up a very considerable time, and, at the very least, a month would intervene before a person could be released. The Government might give a stipendiary magistrate power to hear applications for bail by persons who considered they had a reasonable case against the order of the Lord Lieutenant, and that such magistrate might be entitled to admit a man to bail without resorting to the very summary manner of throwing a man into prison.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it must be remembered that there were cases in which bail could not safely be taken, and, moreover, the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that when an application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench it was made to the whole Court. He did not read the Act in that way. In fact, an application to the Court of Queen's Bench would be as easy and as rapid as one to any Judges or magistrates. There could be nothing more rapid than an application to a Judge, because it would be made in Chambers, and a Judge would always be accessible. There was no doubt that an application to the Queen's Bench for bail could be made quite as rapid as the case to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. The Proviso was certainly ample in cases where bail could really be taken. It would not be safe to provide that there should be bail in every instance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment also stands in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and is to add at the end of the clause—

  249
  "Provided, That if any alien against whom any order under the said Act shall be made shall, at any time within the period limited for his departure in such order, give security by entering into a recognisance before a justice of the peace in such amount as to such justice may seem reasonable, with sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour while within the realm, such order shall thereupon become void and of no effect."
  The Amendment is, however, inconsistent with the power given to the Judges, and, therefore, cannot be put.
  MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL moved to add to the clause the following sub-section:—
  "Any person who shall suffer any loss or injury in consequence of an order made against him under the said Act may, within one year after the date of such order, proceed by action against the Secretary of State who may have made such order, or in case the order was made by the Lord Lieutenant, then against the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and if, on the hearing of such action, such person shall establish that at the date of such order he was not an alien, or that his presence within the realm was not dangerous to the peace or tranquillity of the realm, or any part of it, he shall be entitled to recover in such an action such damages as he may be proved to have sustained in consequence of such order, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or this Act, such person shall be entitled to enter and remain in this realm for the purpose only of giving evidence on the hearing of any such action."
  This sub-section brought out the point which was raised in the preliminary discussion on the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). In that discussion it was stated that if any person not being an alien was wrongfully removed he should have a right of action against the Secretary of State. He apprehended the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have no objection to the substance of this sub-section, and that he would be willing to make the point clear. It was exceedingly important that there should be no mistake in this matter, because as they had not heard that any person removed under the authority of the Alien Act of 1840, and under any of the preceding Acts, had ever brought an action against the Home Secretary, it might happen that the Judges would hold upon the point of law that the wording of the Act released the authorities named from all responsibility, and that the mere statement that a person was an alien would be sufficient to entitle his legal removal. There was no appeal provided
  250
  as to questions of fact, except the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that there was an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench or to one of the Judges in Chambers. If there was such an appeal against imprisonment, that appeal only extended to the preliminary imprisonment which might be inflicted pending the removal of the person, and it did not extend to the justice of the removal itself; and, as far as could be seen, there was not in this Act expressly any appeal as regarded the unlawful removal of any person. It was intimated at the beginning of the proceedings that a Proviso would be brought up showing what ought to be the principle on which the Judges would entertain these applications for bail before the discharge from imprisonment; but this point was an entirely different one, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would no doubt see. It dealt with the unlawfulness and justice of the forcible removal of a person beyond the Kingdom; and, so far as he could see, unless it was quite certain that the persons so removed would have right of action at Common Law against the Home Secretary, if they were able to prove they were not aliens, there was, practically, no remedy provided by this Act. Under these circumstances, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the substance of this section, which legally defined that a person wrongfully removed should have his remedy by an action at law, and it left the question free of all doubt as to any interpretation which might be placed upon the Act of 1848 by the Judges.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add the following sub-section:—"Any person who shall suffer any loss or injury in consequence of an order made against him under the said Act may, within one year after the date of such order, proceed by action against the Secretary of State who may have made such order, or in case the order was made by the Lord Lieutenant, then against the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and if, on the hearing of such action, such person shall establish that, at the date of such order he was not an alien, or that his presence within the realm was not dangerous to the peace or tranquillity of the realm, or any part of it, he shall be entitled to recover in such action such damages as he may be proved to have sustained in consequence of such order, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or this Act,

  251
  such person shall be entitled to enter and remain in this realm for the purpose only of giving evidence on the hearing of any such action."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, two classes of persons would come under the operation of this Amendment—namely, persons who were not aliens, and persons who, being aliens, were anxious to prove that they were not dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the Realm. Let them, in the first place, consider the case of persons who were arrested as aliens, but who, as a matter of fact, were not aliens. They would be prosecuted on the basis that they were aliens; but if they could show they were not aliens, they would be entitled to, and would obtain, their acquittal. The proceedings under the 2nd section of the Act, under which such persons would be prosecuted, would be for misdemeanour, and must necessarily come before a jury. Now, let them take the case of a man who had been simply arrested for disobeying the order for his removal from the country. In his case there was abundant opportunity of investigation. What was the duty of the authorities when they arrested such a man? Whether the man was in custody or not, he had the right of appeal to the Privy Council, by whom every circumstance connected with his status and arrest would be investigated. It would be a perfectly good reason for the person so dealt with to allege before the Privy Council that he was not an alien—nothing could be more easy for the man to show the place to which he belonged and the circumstances connected with his status, and the Privy Council would have the power of deciding either in favour of the order of the Lord Lieutenant or against it. It would also be open to the man to bring forward any circumstance to show that he was not a person dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the Realm; and if he did that, it would be a perfectly good reason why the order made against him should be modified—why the time for his removal should be extended, or why he should be discharged. There could be no possible injustice done under the clause. It would be the duty of the messenger who arrested the man to
  252
  bring the appeal, if the man made one, under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant would bring the matter under the notice of the Privy Council, and no time would be lost. There was plenty of machinery provided for the hearing of the person, either himself or by counsel. Under the ordinary law, in such a case as suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), it would be quite open for a person who was maliciously charged, or without sufficient reason, or who had been dealt with illegally, to bring an action against the person who so dealt with him. It was, however, quite evident that this Act must be a protection to those who acted under it, provided they acted bonâ fide. It might possibly happen that when the person was had up as an alien the facts had been suppressed; and if, after a most perfect inquiry and anxious investigation, it appeared that a wrong conclusion had been arrived at as to the character of the man arrested, it would be inconceivable that any action could be permitted under such circumstances.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Porter) had stated that the servants of the law must be protected so long as they acted bonâ fide and without malice. It was necessary that those who were engaged in the administration of this Act should act with proper care and discretion. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as much, because he had said that if the authorities were guilty of a breach of duty an action at law would lie against them. He (Mr. Sexton) thought it was incumbent on the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), because all the hon. Gentleman asked was that if there be what was really a breach of duty, an action should lie at law against the Secretary of State, or against the Chief Secretary for Ireland; his hon. Friend desired that if a person who was either not an alien, or who, being an alien, was not a person whose residence here was not dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the Realm, was deported from Ireland, he should be entitled to an action against the authorities. Considering the secret nature of the information which the Lord Lieutenant was to receive, considering the facilities at the

  253
  disposal of the authorities for learning the truth, a person who was not an alien, or who, being an alien, was not dangerous to the peace of the Realm, ought to have the right of action if he were improperly arrested. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid stress on the fact that the person against whom the order for deportation was made was entitled to a hearing before the Privy Council. It had been stated that there was no proof that that would be a public hearing—it might be a Star Chamber hearing. Then, again, the statement was alleged against a man that he was an alien, and the onus of proof that he was not an alien was thrown upon the accused. How was the man to prove he was not an alien? If, when an order was served upon him, he was thrown into prison, how was he to get evidence, even if he could, under other circumstances, get it, before he was brought before the Privy Council, to prove he was not an alien? If he had lived in America for many years previously, how was he to communicate with Washington? How was the man, in the one or two days which would transpire before he was brought before the Privy Council, to get evidence to prove a negative? It was quite impossible for the man to prove a negative. The statement would be placed in his hands that he was an alien, and what he had to prove was that he never took out letters of naturalization in another country. As the Act stood, the hearing before the Privy Council was a perfect farce. The man might be the son of an Irishman who went to America as a child, and the accused's citizenship of the United States might depend upon the fact whether his father, many years ago, took out letters of naturalization. How in the world was a man arrested and thrown into gaol in Ireland to prove, in 24 hours, whether or not his father, 15 or 20 years before, took out letters of naturalization? The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) had said that if a man were imprisoned in the first place, he would be imprisoned because he had not obeyed the order of the Lord Lieutenant; and the hon. and learned Gentleman contended that upon the hearing of the charge of disobedience to the order of the Lord Lieutenant, the question whether the man was an alien or not, or whether, being an alien, his presence was dangerous to the
  254
  peace and tranquillity of the Realm, would arise. It appeared to him (Mr. Sexton) that all the jury would have to do would be to consider whether the order had been disobeyed, and whether the man brought before them was the person referred to in the order for removal. The mere production of the order in The Dublin Gazette, and proof that the prisoner was the man there referred to, would be sufficient for the jury. It was not at all essential to prove to the jury that the prisoner was an alien. Under all the circumstances, he maintained that the prisoner was entitled to the right, at any subsequent date, to bring an action against the authorities, if he could prove he was not such a person as was referred to in the Act, and if he could prove that the power of ordering his removal was exercised without proper care.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it was a very important matter, and he was sorry he was obliged to dwell upon it so strongly. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had very justly pointed out that it was utterly impossible that anyone could prove that he was not an alien. He did not suppose that anybody in that House could do such a thing; and in the case of an Irishman, who had not taken out letters of naturalization, the difficulties were still greater. It was, in certain cases, comparatively easy to prove that a person was an alien, because certain forms had to be gone through, and records were kept of the fact of naturalization. For instance, in the case of John Mitchel, who was elected Member of Parliament for Tipperary, the question of naturalization as an American citizen came up on the proceedings disqualifying him as a Member of that House, and his papers were produced, together with photographs, and his letters of naturalization in the Court in Ireland. It would have been quite impossible, if Mr. Mitchel had not taken out those letters of naturalization—if he had not become an American citizen—it would have been quite impossible for him to have proved before any tribunal that he was not an alien. In fact, the construction of the Act of 1848 left it within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to remove anybody from Ireland—whether he was an alien or not—since the onus of proving a negative was thrown upon the person so re-

  255
  moved; and it would also appear, from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) that there was considerable doubt as to whether an action would lie against the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State for the wrongful exercise of his authority. He (Mr. Parnell) understood that the Chief Secretary could be sued for any wrongful action, and that a police-constable or Sub-Inspector could be sued in like manner, but that the Lord Lieutenant could not be so sued. He supposed that if a person were forcibly removed by a policeman an action would lie against that policeman for damages in case that forcible removal were a wrongful removal. These were points upon which he should be glad to have some information from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was ready to give up a considerable portion of his Amendment and leave the recovery of damages dependent upon the proof by the Lord Lieutenant or Home Secretary before the Court that the person removed was really an alien. He observed that the clause as it then ran left the onus of proof on the person so removed. Of course, they had had very little time to draft these Amendments, and it was very probable that technical mistakes had been made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that a person wrongfully removed would have his remedy by action; and he (Mr. Parnell) had just asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland whether that remedy would lie in Ireland against the Lord Lieutenant, or whether the action would have to be taken against the subordinate officers? Whatever was the fact of the matter, it should be clearly expressed in that clause, or some other part of the Bill, so that the matter should not be left to the constructive interpretation of the Judges who would have to administer the Act. If it had been stated that an action could lie against the Lord Lieutenant, the remedy should be made against the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and this ought to be stated in the Bill, because it would be entirely illusory to hold that a person wrongfully removed would have his remedy against a common policeman.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork
  256
  (Mr. Parnell) had not been quite correct in his statement. He (Sir William Harcourt) was always chary of expressing an opinion upon matters of law, and the hon. Member would see that these were nice and difficult questions of law, which could not be settled off-hand. There were two principles that were essential in the law—the first of these was that persons in the execution of a public duty were not liable to actions for damages if they acted bonâ fide, and with reasonable cause. On the other hand, where persons had suffered a wrong there would be a remedy for them in an action at law if an officer of the law had acted in any respect maliciously. He (Sir William Harcourt) could not be expected to give any undertaking or any positive information without having the opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on the matter. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would consent to postpone this matter until the Report, and, in the meanwhile, he (Sir William Harcourt) would consider how the matter stood.
  DR. COMMINSwished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that by an Amendment carried on the previous day the Alien Act was to extend to England as well as to Ireland. It was a well-known principle in English law that there was no wrong without a remedy, and that if by mistake some person was arrested wrongfully he had a right of action against somebody. It was equally true that he would not have a right of action against the person who arrested him nor against the gaoler who detained him. It was also true that the officers of the law who merely executed the warrant would not be liable to any action; but it was equally true that if the party aggrieved could get hold of the person who put the law in motion by alleging that which was false, he could cause that person to be arrested, and would have against him a right of action. This raised a point that had been already brought under the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and it was this—that there should be some starting of the proceedings that could be taken cognizance of judicially, and that should be specified in some definite shape to enable people to find out who were the authors of their wrongs. In Ireland

  257
  the warrant under which the man might be arrested might not be the warrant of the Chief Secretary, but the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant. That would be an Executive act, and no action, as the Solicitor General for Ireland had just pointed out, could be brought against the Lord Lieutenant. The information which was to be the cause of the warrant might possibly be police information, for all that the Act provided was that the information should be laid in writing, and that somebody's name and address should be attached. It was highly necessary that there should be some means of verifying the names and addresses of those who supplied the information, otherwise the information might be made upon names which were altogether false, and upon statements of circumstances which were entirely imaginary. Therefore, in order to carry out the old principle of Common Law, that every wrong must have its remedy, there should be some safeguard in the Bill against action being taken upon false, and, it might be, malicious information. No remedy could possibly be had by a man wrongfully imprisoned, unless there was some such provision as that embodied in the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). If nobody was wrong, if no one was forcibly imprisoned, if no one was sent out of the country upon false information, the liability meant nothing, and His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant would never have to pay a farthing damages; but suppose a mischievous use was made of the Act, suppose a person was forcibly imprisoned, suppose false accusations were made under fictitious names, there was no remedy provided in Ireland, while, at the same time, there would be in England.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had asked two questions, neither of which had been answered. The Home Secretary had returned to the House, and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) would repeat briefly the points he had raised. When a person was arrested as an alien he would be tried for misdemeanour before an ordinary Court of Justice; and the Solicitor General for Ireland contended that at such trial the question whether the man was an alien or not, or whether, being an alien, his presence was dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the Realm, would arise. He wished to ask
  258
  the Home Secretary whether, in a case of disobedience to the order of the Lord Lieutenant or the Secretary of State, it would not be sufficient for the authorities to prove to the jury that the prisoner was the person referred to in the order? If not, would it be necessary to prove that the man would be an alien? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT assented.] It would! Then, who was to prove it—the Crown Prosecutor? He (Mr. Sexton) wanted to have that point made clear.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that when a man was arrested as an alien, it would certainly have to be proved that he was an alien or not a natural-born Englishman.
  MR. SEXTON: A natural-born Englishman?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Well, an alien.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that was a satisfactory reply. He would now turn to the question of the hearing by the Privy Council; and perhaps the Committee would notice the discrepancy between the proceedings before the Queen's Bench and those before the Privy Council. In the Court of Queen's Bench the Crown must prove that the man was an alien; but before the Privy Council the man must prove that he was not an alien—he was thrown upon his own defence. There was no provision that the Crown, before the Lords of the Privy Council, should prove that the man was an alien; all that was provided for by the Act was that the accused must give an excuse or a reason in reply to the statement that he was an alien. He hoped the Home Secretary would seriously consider this point. An Irishman might have been several years in America; he might have returned to Ireland without taking out letters of naturalization; and there might be certain general circumstances to make the Lord Lieutenant believe he was an alien when he was not. What was to be done if such a man were taken before the Privy Council? He would be asked to prove that he was not an alien; that although, perhaps, he had lived in America many years he had not naturalized himself. He would be asked to prove a negative which was impossible. He hoped he had now shown that the whole proceedings before the Privy Council were a complete farce.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, according to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Sexton's) argument, it was to be assumed that the Privy Council would not do their duty. It was quite plain that the duty of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Privy Council was to have positive evidence that the man brought up was an alien, otherwise they would have no right to order his deportation. If the Lord Lieutenant had evidence in his possession which satisfied him that the man was an alien, His Excellency had no right to deal with him under this Act. There was a third tribunal before whom the alleged alien could go. The man might apply to a Judge to be admitted to bail, and before that Judge he might allege that he was not an alien. There were thus three tribunals before whom the man could go, and all of whom they were to assume would decline to do that which it was their duty to do—namely, to be satisfied that the man was an alien within the meaning of the 2nd section of the Act. It was quite plain that a man's citizenship was raised in such a form that it must be proved distinctly that he was an alien before he could be deported. He (Sir William Harcourt) could not assume that the whole or any of the three tribunals provided under the Act would decline to do their manifest duty; and, therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on Report, would insert words which would make it clear that positive evidence that the prisoner was an alien should be brought before the Privy Council? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that, it would go a long way to conciliate the objections to the clause. It certainly did appear to him (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends that the Privy Council would not require any such evidence. The matter was left entirely to the exculpatory action of the person to be removed. There was no necessity on the part of the Lord Lieutenant to make out any case before the Privy Council as to the justice of the order. He (Mr. Parnell) was willing to accept the statement of the Home Secretary that, in his judgment, positive evidence would be required by the Privy Council that the man was an alien; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would
  260
  give effect to his belief by means of a clause, the objections of himself (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends would diminish.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would consider the matter between this and Report. He had, however, omitted to mention another great security which a man wrongfully arrested as an alien had. There was nothing to prevent such a man suing out a habeas corpus.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was rather referring to the case of a person who had not been arrested, but who was going to be sent out of the country. Such a man would practically have no remedy but an appeal to the Privy Council.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, nothing would prevent that man suing out a habeas corpus. He could lodge an appeal, and, the moment he did that, the execution of the warrant was suspended.
  MR. PARNELL: He might not be in custody.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member would see that the man must be arrested, and then the magistrate in whose custody he was for the purpose of deportation "must make known to the Secretary of State his objection." No sudden deportation could take place, and while all this was going on the man must be in custody. He could see no way in which a person, not being an alien, could bring the matter up so that the onus of proof would not be on the Crown. There was really no difference between himself and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but the matter should be considered carefully by Report.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had shown that where a man had been arrested he could appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, or to the Privy Council. If, however, a man were carried out of the country before any permanent arrest had been made, he could not appeal either to the Privy Council or the Judges.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the man could appeal at the very moment of his arrest. A messenger could not arrest him except under a warrant, and at the very instant of his arrest he could lodge any appeal to the Judges,

  261
  and the messenger was bound to make known the fact.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, there was no provision in the Act that the messenger should inform the person arrested that he had a right to his writ of habeas corpus.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was important to remember that if a man took out a writ of habeas corpus it would involve his getting a solicitor, and then a barrister; briefs would have to be drawn up, and all this would occupy at least a week, during which time the man might be in custody and suffering a loss of business. As to the appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, it was well known that the Irish Courts would not go into the facts of a case. He spoke in the hearing of the Irish Law Officers, and he defied them to deny what he now stated. The Irish Courts, instead of going into the facts, simply saw whether the Government or a magistrate had or had not certain powers. The question whether the powers were wrongfully exercised was of no concern to them. That was so under the Act of Edward III.; they simply satisfied themselves that the magistrates had certain power under that Act, and then they refused all redress. This state of things was clearly shown in the case of Miss O'Connor and others. Let the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) get up in his place and deny it if he could. The Home Secretary said that, under the Amendment, it was to be assumed that the Privy Council would not do what was right, and that the Government would not do what was right. The Opposition in the House of Commons acted continually on the supposition that the Government would not do what was right. The point of the Amendment was that, where a man had been wrongfully arrested, and where his business had been damaged, he should have some means of redress, and no amount of argument on the part of the Chief Secretary would destroy the justice of the proposal. It was ridiculous to suppose that if a man were arrested as an alien and kept in prison for any time at all, and if afterwards it were proved that he was no alien at all he should have no remedy.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the matter had now been very considerably narrowed down. Were the Committee to under-
  262
  stand that by Report, if it were seen that there was any doubt on the point, the Home Secretary would insert words to the effect that the Judge, or Court, and the Privy Council should require evidence that the man brought before them was an alien?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the matter should be carefully considered before Report.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself, of course, the right of returning to the matter on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved to add to the clause—
  "Provided that such reasonable expenses of any alien, against whom any order shall he made under the said Act as will enable him to comply with the terms of such order, and travel to the country of which he is a citizen, shall, on application, be paid to him."
  He did not suppose the Government had any objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add—"Provided that such reasonable expenses of any alien against whom any order shall be made under the said Act as will enable him to comply with the terms of such order, and travel to the country of which he is a citizen, shall, on application, be paid to him."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if he understood the Amendment properly, if they sent a man away they were to pay his expenses. The hypothesis upon which a man would be ordered to leave the country would be that he had come here to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the Realm. That being so, he could not see how the country could be expected to pay the man to go away.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been very pleasant in his reply; but he had gone on the assumption that the Crown was always right. He (Mr. Healy) did not go on such an assumption, but brought forward the case from the point of view of the people. He would put the case of a man who might have been living in the country for some time, but who might not have the necessary funds to carry him away. Such a man would be kept in

  263
  prison until someone raised him the funds with which to get him away. Surely, if a man were really a dangerous foe to the British Constitution, the best thing the Government could do was to get rid of him as soon as possible. In the case of the Fenian prisoners, the Government granted them a sum of money with which to get to America. The Government of which the Home Secretary was a Member actually paid the expenses of O'Donovan Rossa to America, the "land of dynamite." In fact, Mr. O'Donovan Rossa had been set up in life by the British Government. It was only in the interest of poor men who had not the means to leave the country that he proposed this Amendment; and he trusted that by the Report the Government would see their way to accept this or some similar Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was a provision which the Government could not possibly accept.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee 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.
  Amendment again proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add "Provided that such reasonable expenses of any alien against whom any order shall be made under the said Act as will enable him to comply with the terms of such order, and travel to the country of which he is a citizen, shall, on application, be paid to him."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it appeared to him that this Amendment was one that ought to be accepted by the Government, and for this reason—that if an alien were ordered by the Lord Lieutenant to leave the country, he might not have the means to do so; and, in that case, he (Mr. Biggar) should like to know how it would be possible for such a person to obey the Lord Lieutenant's order, unless the authority sending him away paid his steamboat fare? He did not know
  264
  what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) thought of the proposition; but unless he assented to it, it would appear to be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that these aliens would find Steamboat Companies who would be ready to take them away to their native country for mere charity's sake. But, for his (Mr. Biggar's) part, he thought that such a thing was very unlikely, and it seemed to him that the only feasible way of getting rid of those persons whom it might be considered desirable to remove as aliens would be for the Government to pay their steamboat fare to whatever countries they might happen to be natives of. He certainly thought it ought to be provided by the clause that the expenses of the deported persons should be paid to the countries of which they were citizens, because otherwise what might occur would be this—that if the clause were simply held to mean that the travelling expenses of the aliens subjected to removal under the Bill were only to be paid out of the country from which they were deported, in any case where the expelled persons happened to be American citizens, or citizens of some other country at a great distance from Ireland, they might be merely conveyed to some country in which they would be quite as much aliens as they were in Ireland. That being so, he really could not see what objection Her Majesty's Government could raise against the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the fact was that the Members of the Committee had already spoken so much on this Alien Clause that certain hon. Gentlemen seemed to have talked themselves into the idea that the aliens whom, it was admitted, it would be desirable to get rid of, were really very amiable persons, who would be a great loss to the country. The fact was that the clause was one which Her Majesty's Government would never put in operation, except against persons whose loss would be a great gain to the country, and, he might add, a great gain to themselves; because if they were to stay any longer in this Kingdom they would probably put themselves in such a position that their absence would be a small misfortune to them in comparison with what would be likely to happen if they continued to re-

  265
  main here. The proposition before the Committee was one that could not possibly be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and he must repeat that the Act would never be put in operation except against persons who had no claim upon the country whatever.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not met the difficulty which he (Mr. Biggar) had attempted to put to him—and that was, how was an unfortunate alien who happened to be without means to get away when ordered by the Lord Lieutenant to quit the country? The Lord Lieutenant would say to such a person—"You must go," and if he did not obey he would be put in the hands of a Queen's messenger; but how was the Queen's messenger to get the man away if he did not pay his steamboat fare? It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar), from the point of view he took of the matter, that the Government would be bound to provide the means, in such cases as these, for carrying out the Lord Lieutenant's order, because if they took the steamboat ticket and got the alien on board, the matter would be settled once for all; but otherwise they would find it a very difficult thing to carry out the intention of the clause.
  MR. TREVELYANassured the hon. Gentleman that the question of paying the steamboat fare in such cases might be left with perfect confidence to Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the question was not at all such as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had represented it—it was not a question of whether, in the eyes of certain hon. Members, aliens were amiable persons. The question was, whether a man was to be punished for disobeying the order of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that he should quit the country. Let the Committee just consider for a moment what was to be the process. The Lord Lieutenant made an order that a certain person should leave the country; but supposing that person had not the ready money to enable him to do so—for it might be taken that these aliens were not generally persons with a sufficient amount of cash in hand to pay the expense of a long voyage—what would have to be done? His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had proposed a method by which the difficulty would
  266
  be properly met. If the man had to be removed by the Act of the Government, the Government would have to pay for his passage; why, then, should they not recognize the obligation at once and consent to the payment of the money beforehand? In other words, might not the Government give the man the option of going away of his own free will and of paying the money himself, or of leaving it to the Government to put its own order in execution? He thought there could be no answer to this proposition.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he desired to move a sub-section which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), but which had been passed over at the time in order to give precedence to another question. The Amendment was, to add, at the end of the clause, the following sub-section:—
  "A copy of every order under this section shall be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 43, at end, add the following sub-section:—"A copy of every order under this section shall be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. His recollection might be wrong, but his impression was that this Amendment was substantially the same as an Amendment that was discussed a day or two before, and then negatived.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he should be glad to know what course the Government proposed to take with regard to this proposition? An alteration might be made with regard to the limit of time if the Government thought that 14 days were too much.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought he remembered his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary assenting to this Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLasked, would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre-

  267
  tary consent to add the sub-section to the clause now?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought it would, be better to take it on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdraion.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. DILLONsaid, he would suggest that the clause be left out of the Bill. He would state the reasons, as briefly as possible, why he made this proposal. He thought that one point which constituted a good reason why they should object to this clause being enacted as part of the Bill had been overlooked. He thought that every Member of that House, no matter on which side he sat, would be willing to acknowledge that no powers of the kind contained in that clause ought to be given to Her Majesty's Government unless some real necessity for the exercise of such powers were proved to exist. He contended that Her Majesty's Government had not proved the necessity for any such powers being conferred upon them. On the contrary, it was in the recollection of the Committee that the Government had already obtained a clause, which was of a very stringent character, with regard to the way in which they might deal with strangers. They had a clause which enabled them to arrest any stranger who might be seen going about the country under what were called suspicious circumstances; and, with this power at the disposal of the Government, he failed to see why they should require the Committee to press this further clause dealing with aliens. He knew, of course, that it might be said, and, indeed, was said, that the Alien Clause was introduced with a view of removing all danger of complications that might otherwise arise with foreign Governments. He confessed that there was some show of plausibility in the defence made of the clause on this ground, or this excuse, if it were alleged by Her Majesty's Government as a reason for the contention that the clause dealing with strangers would not be sufficient for all the purposes the Government had put forward in justification of this clause. But supposing they were to admit this point, and that the present clause was one which Her Majesty's Government had indirectly proposed for
  268
  the purpose of removing any danger of collision with foreign Governments, he would put it to the Committee, would not the clause they had already got, dealing with strangers, enable Her Majesty's Government to deal with the matter in such a way as to give the Irish Members the concession they had asked for at an earlier stage in the consideration of the subject—namely, a sufficiently long period of warning to those aliens whom the Government might intend to remove? The Committee had already passed a clause giving the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland power to arrest any stranger who might be found under suspicious circumstances in any district in that country. He supposed that any alien who would be liable to be dealt with by the clause under consideration would be also regarded as coming within the clause which was made applicable to strangers. If, therefore, the Government thought there was any immediate danger of any alien committing some atrocity in Ireland of such a character that his immediate removal from that country was thought desirable, why should they not bring the right sort of action against him which they had provided in the clause, enabling them to arrest strangers, so that in this way they could make it safer to grant to the Irish Members the concession they had asked for—namely, that no alien should be removable without a warning of 10 or 20 days, or whatever period might be considered necessary to enable him to wind up his affairs and make some provision for his removal out of the country? It seemed to him to be a very unreasonable thing on the part of Her Majesty's Government to have refused this concession; and he regarded their having made this refusal as constituting an additional reason why the Committee should reject the clause. He did not think it necessary at the present moment to repeat the arguments that had been urged in favour of the various Amendments that had been brought forward for the purpose of modifying this clause. He thought that all those arguments had been very fairly put forward on the part of the Irish Members, and they constituted sufficient reasons why he and his hon. Friends should oppose the clause being passed as a whole as well as in detail. He therefore asked the Committee to reject the clause.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he also desired to oppose the passing of the clause as a whole. The Committee had been asked by Her Majesty's Government what interest they could possibly have in merely causing annoyance and giving trouble to peaceable persons in Ireland? They had heard this sort of question put before, and they had heard the same kind of arguments used with reference to another Coercion Bill—he referred to the measure that had been passed last year. When that measure was before the House, they were told that it could not be to the interest of Her Majesty's Government to create needless trouble in the country; and the House was asked to trust them in carrying out their good intentions, in the exercise of their benevolence, and in the exhibition of their sense of justice, and all that sort of thing. Appeals such as these were made by Her Majesty's Government in the mildest tones imaginable; and one might almost have been led to think, while listening to the dulcet tones which the Home Secretary could employ when it suited his purpose, that there was no other object in that Bill except that of making the whole population of Ireland contented and happy. But although the velvet paw had been put forth in that manner in that House, they knew very well that it was any thing but a velvet paw in Ireland, because what was felt in that country was the pain and injury inflicted by the sharp claws of that Act. Nevertheless, with all their experience of what had followed as the consequence of the Bill of last year, they were once more asked, in connection with the present Bill, what intention could there be on the part of the Government to annoy or irritate the Irish people? They were asked to believe of Her Majesty's Government that they would exercise the powers to be conferred on them by that particular measure in a judicious and temperate manner, and that they would do no hurt or harm to any decent or well-intentioned persons. Such, however, were the representations made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and such were the appeals addressed by them to the House at the time the still existent Coercion Act was being passed. But he would put it to the Committee, was it not a well-known fact that a large number of law-abiding and respectable people had been annoyed and harassed
  270
  by the way in which that Coercion Act was put in operation? Was it for a moment asserted that the class of persona who had suffered molestation, arrest, and imprisonment, under that Act would be made to suffer from the action of that measure? Were they not told at the time that the Government knew who were the real perpetrators of crime and outrage in Ireland, and that only those who were well known to the police as coming within this category would be harassed or annoyed by the operation of the Act? The allegations and pretences made by Her Majesty's Government, with a view of securing the passage of that Act, had been falsified—grossly and notoriously falsified—by the subsequent conduct of the Irish Executive, and they might depend upon it that the same thing would happen in the present instance as soon as the powers now sought for had been conferred on the Government. The Irish Executive, they were told, would only interfere with those whom they had good reason to believe to be bad characters, and persons who were about to commit crime and outrage in Ireland. Very well; but if this were so, was it to be supposed that they had acted in the same manner under the provisions of the present Coercion Act? Had they, under that Act, arrested no one but those whom they believed to be criminals, either in act or in intention? Was it to be supposed that only such persons as these had been arrested under the existing Act? If this were the belief of the Government in this matter, it was not the belief of hon. Gentlemen sitting on those (the Opposition) Benches, nor was it the belief of the people of Ireland. The Irish people knew very well that if this were really the belief of the Government, it was a belief that was altogether without foundation; and, on their part, the people of Ireland would not take as any guarantee of the safe working of the present measure the assurance made by Her Majesty's Government that it would interfere with nobody except those who deserved to be interfered with. What, he asked, were the means of forming such a belief that were possessed by the Irish Government? According to the intention and provisions of the Bill, the Lord Lieutenant was to be the prime mover in the initiation of the proceedings by which the measure would

  271
  be put in operation. But how was it possible that the Lord Lieutenant could be made aware of all that was going on throughout Ireland? The Lord Lieutenant could not be constantly travelling through the country; he could not visit all the different districts and hear evidence on both sides of the question with regard to every individual who might happen to be denounced as a suspicious character. As a matter of course, the belief of the Government in all these cases would be the belief of the magistrates, the belief of the police, and the belief of the landlords; and, perhaps, it would be on something even less than the belief of these persons that they would ground the suspicion on which they would enforce this clause. Moreover, would not the Government be certain to be told by all these persons, as an assurance intended to afford them comfort and satisfaction, that the law-abiding and peaceable members of the community were not interfered with under this measure? He granted that if men would only be content to confine themselves to their every-day avocations—if they were satisfied with performing their duty as mere labourers—hewers of wood and drawers of water—if they kept quiet and said nothing, if they refrained from any expression of political opinion, if they held no political meetings, or, in other words, if they were content to reduce themselves to the condition of the beasts of the field, and did not think nor talk of political matters or public affairs, the benevolent Government that was asking for these coercive powers would not interfere. This he was prepared to grant, and he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government would no more interfere under these circumstances than they would interfere with the cows and horses on the different farms—would no more arrest and imprison such people than they would arrest and imprison the beasts of the field. But let these persons once dare to think and speak about the affairs of Ireland; let them dare to show that they were possessed of hearts and minds; let them dare to display any feeling of indignation or resentment because of the wrongs that had been done to the Irish people, or let them have the courage to evince that they had aspirations in the direction of liberty and freedom, and they would find that they would at once
  272
  be brought within the scope and operation of the Bill. In regard to the question as to the necessity of this clause, it had already been argued, and argued, he thought, very fairly. Had the Government officers in Ireland as yet ventured to deal with these so-called aliens? For what purpose did the Government want this clause? An alien might be a stranger in the country; but, for that matter, the legislation they were at that moment engaged in passing converted the whole of the Irish people into either strangers or aliens, for there was not a man who might happen to go eight or ten miles away from his home in any part of Ireland who would not be liable to be regarded, from a legal point of view, as a stranger. Henceforth strangers could be made of everybody in Ireland, and hardly anyone would be at home there except Brown, Jones, and Robinson, who went over to visit the country. What, he asked, could be expected under such a system of legislation? The clause dealt with aliens. Who were those aliens? They were members of the Irish race—the sons and brothers of the Irish people—people who had left their native land a few years ago, whose fathers and mothers lived in Ireland, and who came back from abroad to visit their friends and relatives. These men were to be looked upon as aliens, and perilous to English rule in Ireland and to the public peace. Well, even if these men were dangerous to the public peace, there was little to wonder at in it. England had sown the dragon's teeth. These men were, for the most part, evicted tenants, or the sons and brothers of evicted farmers; and if, after tasting the sweets of liberty in America, and living under a free flag, they, on their return, were not enamoured of the state of things in their own country and of British rule, little wonder said he. They (the Irish Members) had no sympathy with persons who returned to Ireland to commit crime, or those who committed crime without having left the country, or those who were connected with the perpetration of atrocity of any sort; but the scope of this Bill went far beyond these people. The Irish Members had said, over and over again, that if the incidence of this legislation was only to affect criminals they would not object to it; but they saw in it that which would be oppressive to thousands

  273
  and thousands of the Irish people. They saw in it that which would help to unsettle the country and intensify the feelings of antagonism and hatred that existed in the minds of all classes of the Irish people, save the little foreign garrison retained there. It was a shortsighted policy that was forcing this measure, and this clause of the measure, on the people of Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that this clause, as amended, was a virtual re-enactment of the Act of 1848 for the whole of the United Kingdom. That Act was passed for the purpose of securing the peace and tranquillity in this Realm; and, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) knew very well, there had been a great difference of opinion about it. It was the opinion of some that political views would be imported from the Continent which it was desirable should not be promulgated in the United Kingdom; but, whether or not, the Act was never put into operation as that of 1791 had been. No doubt, some Member of the Government would speak on this subject, and when he did he (Mr. Arnold) hoped he would inform them how far the clause now under consideration was strictly confined and limited by the title and Preamble of the Bill. The Bill was called "A Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland;" but they had now re-enacted the Alien Act. Was the power to use the Alien Act only to be for the prevention of crime against Her Majesty or Her Majesty's subjects? That would be an important limitation; at any rate, he was anxious to hear from Her Majesty's Government that this clause was not likely to embroil us with Continental Governments. It was strange there had been so little said as to the political aspect of the clause. Hardly a single remark had been made about it except by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) in his observations just now, and he had said that it would be necessary to consider what complications with America this clause might involve us in. It had been asked what was the origin of this clause. There could be no doubt that it was the deportation of the Irish people to America, the feeling with which the Irish people had left their native country, and the feeling which, most unhappily, they entertained towards this country. The value of the clause, to his
  274
  mind, was derived principally from the fact of his knowledge of the hatred that unhappily existed against England on the part of millions of people of the Irish race on the other side of the Atlantic. He did not hesitate to say that he valued this provision as a necessary protection for the Government of this country against the possibility of embroilments with the Government of the United States. There were in this country hundreds—nay, more than hundreds, thousands of political refugees from other European States. We had now re-enacted the Alien Act of 1848. Well, that fact would, no doubt, be published abroad, and would, from time to time, during the long period of three years, during which the Act was to remain in force, bring communications to Her Majesty's Government from the Continental States of Europe, requesting us to deport the subjects of those States. He was anxious that we should be protected from any danger of that sort; and he should, therefore, be glad if Her Majesty's Government would establish the fact beyond doubt that the application of the Bill would be governed by the fact that it was a Bill for the prevention of crime in Ireland, or that it should apply only to crime committed in Ireland or against her Government.
  MR. O'SULLIVANopposed the clause. He said he did so because he feared it would be open to a very great amount of abuse. Under the clause an alien might be removed merely in consequence of a private letter written by one man to another—by the ipse dixit of a certain man who might write to an official in Dublin Castle, saying—"Such and such an alien is spreading sedition; he is dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the country; you should have him removed." The authorities at Dublin Castle, in all probability, would know very little about the man referred to except what they heard from the local police. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) knew many people who had returned from America, and had come to settle down in their native country for the rest of their lives—small tradesmen and farmers who had made a little money on the other side of the Atlantic. There was no class of people more respectable and industrious than this. The opinions of such people on Irish questions, as a general rule, were very strong, and very displeasing

  275
  to the local magistrates, who were gentlemen who thought themselves of great importance throughout the country. The local magistrates would not be slow in writing letters to get the Government to expel these Irishmen returned from America. If the clause only dealt with those who were likely to commit crime in the country, he should not oppose the clause so strongly as he felt bound to oppose it. When he saw the Government refusing to accept such an Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), which would exempt from the operation of the clause men who had lived 12 months in the country, he must confess that the provision looked dangerous, and that it made the Government look as though they intended to use the Act for the purpose of expelling from the United Kingdom men who had settled down and resided in it for years. If the Government would agree to a modification of the clause, in the spirit of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo, there would not be so much danger of the clause being abused. Would the Home Secretary even put the period at two years? Surely, there need be nothing to fear in withholding permission to expel from the country a man who had resided in it so long a period as two years. He hoped that, on Report, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make some proposal to modify the clause in the interests of those hard-working men who had settled down in Ireland, and who, having centred their business and means of living there, would be ruined if compelled to leave the country.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: In the discussion on this clause reference was made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) to the course I took with regard to this clause in 1848. He did me the honour of reading my name as being one of the minority of 22 who opposed the Act at that time. If he had read through the whole of the debate he would have found that there was a reason for objecting to that Act which, I believe, does not now prevail, and has no influence with regard to the present time. In the speech of Sir George Grey, who introduced the Bill, it was plainly set forth that the main or great object of the Bill was to prevent the spread of Republican opinions which at that time were threatening to overturn most of the Monarchical institutions of Europe, and which some
  276
  people were afraid might have the same effect in this country. I recollect at that time a gentleman from Paris—very much mistaken in my character—calling upon me to discuss with me whether it was not possible that what had been done in so many European capitals might not be done in the capital of this country. I told him the state of things was very different in this country. I told him that anything recommended to the people in the nature of intrusion from abroad would be resolutely opposed by the people. Now, the Alien Act of 1848 was intended to prevent the incursion of opinion. This Act has no such intention whatever. Its object is to prevent the incursion of persons practically, I may say, from a particular country. No doubt its bearing is a hundred times more direct upon persons coming here from the United States than of persons coming from any country in Europe; and we need not be surprised at that, because we hear a good deal about a party in America called "The American-Irish." We have had some interesting books recently published, which give us a good deal of information with regard to them. But we know, further, that those opinions, when published to the world, are most violent, not only against the Government, but, I might say, almost also against the people of Great Britain. It has been the boast of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the last two years, that they have had an almost unlimited supply of money from the United States for the purpose of continuing political agitation in Ireland. Of that there can be no doubt. Well, we know, further, that in America there has been a series of constant conspiracies for some years past in connection with something like corresponding conspiracies in Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well that not many years ago a soldier of fortune—a man ready to fight anywhere, I hope not in any cause—came to this country in expectation that his friends in Ireland would immediately put him at the head of an army of 10,000 men. He afterwards published his experiences to the world in one of the reviews of this country. I had an opportunity of conversing with him for, I should think, at least an hour, and he told me the reason—which, I think, was not exactly accurate—as to what had brought him here, and he asked my opinion as to the state of feeling in

  277
  this country, partly as regarded England, but chiefly as regarded Ireland. I told him that nothing could be more hazardous or more certain to lead him to destruction than if he took part in conspiracies which were then afloat. I recollect that in the article he wrote, he said he found out the police had discovered the whole matter, and that he left London very suddenly, adding that, "on occasions like this, I travel with very little luggage." I thought that General Cluseret, as he was called, was a very sensible man to get away out of the difficulty into which he was very near plunging himself. Now, these are the things which we all have in our memory. In all these books—and hon. Gentlemen opposite have read them and know more about them than we do—we have accounts of drillings, and armings, and conspiracies, sometimes slumbering, sometimes very active, among Irishmen in America, and discontented Irishmen in Ireland. Hon. Members opposite boast, and are always boasting, of the number of Irishmen in America. They say the English Government has not only to meet Ireland and the Irish who are in that Island, but also the Irish race in every part of the world, and particularly the Irish race on the American Continent. An hon. Member who sits on that side of the House not long ago told me that he had consulted an officer of the American Census Office, and had learnt that there were 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 of persons in the United States, who were, if not Irishmen or Irishwomen, yet of Irish blood. These are the numbers, and this is the race. This is the Republican population of the United States by whom we are constantly threatened, and whom, as we are told by the hon. Member opposite, we have to meet; and he said there could be no hope whatsoever of a continuance of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, or of peace in Ireland, when the Irish people had their aids—I will not say as their fellow-conspirators, but fellow-sympathizers—so large a population on the American Continent. And this brings us to the state of things at this moment. We know perfectly well—and hon. Gentlemen opposite know—that the scores of thousands of pounds received from the United States have been the main means by which the party movement during the last two years has been conducted,
  278
  and we know that throughout Ireland—I will not say in all parts of Ireland, but in three-fourths of it—there have been persons from the United States who have endeavoured, in co-operation with hon. Gentlemen opposite, to stir up the feeling of the people of Ireland against the Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom. There can be no manner of doubt about that. Everyone who has recently crossed the Atlantic in steamers can tell of the number of persons who have been coming over—and who are believed to be connected with the political associations in Ireland—with the object of aiding in the purposes of those associations. Now, we have had some very serious crimes committed, such as have shocked not only the feelings of the people of this country, but of the whole civilized world; and we know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and others who are their associates, endeavour to escape from having the charge fixed on Irishmen and upon Ireland by assuming or asserting that these crimes have been committed by persons who have come to Ireland from the United States. I have seen careful articles written to show, from the nature of a particular crime, that it could not have been perpetrated by an Irishman, but that it must have been committed by some persons from the United States. Who are the persons with whom these murderers are associated in the United States? Clearly and certainly they are persons with whom hon. Gentlemen opposite or their associates are associated, because it is obvious—it is not a matter that requires assertion—it is clear to the understanding of everyone that the people who send over these large sums of money from the United States are themselves united in opinion, and are in connection with those who are endeavouring to stimulate political agitation in Ireland. By looking at even a portion of what we have seen during the last two years, it is obvious that the condition of Ireland has been made greatly worse by the acts of persons subscribing money in America, or employing themselves in coming to this country and in taking part in the conspiracies which have been established in Ireland. If it were necessary to go into any further proof, I would go into that Convention at Chicago, which I referred to a good many weeks ago—a Convention which was called by six men, one

  279
  of them, I think, the editor of The Irish World, one a leading conspirator in Boston, and three of them men from Ireland, two of whom have seats in this House. These six names—three of them from Ireland—were at the head of the Circular convening this Convention. Yet in this House hon. Members, in my opinion most inaccurately, said they had nothing to do with the Convention. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) said that they went there merely as spectators, in order to ascertain what opinion the Irish in America held of the Irish in Ireland. I say that they called the Convention. I say that at a reception given on one of the nights of the Convention all of them spoke, and two of them made long speeches—speeches of violence and menace, and one of them was one of the most violent that I have ever read. That was the fact. And, more than that, a leading member of that Convention stated that our friends, or his friends, from Ireland had been taken in council, and had assisted at the preparation of the Resolutions of the Convention, and of the address which was issued to the people of Ireland. I mean to say that the conduct of that Convention, so far as any person who partook of it was a subject of the Queen, was a Convention of traitors. There can be no other accurate name given to men who took part in that transaction, and who were the subjects of the Queen, than that they were rebels to the English Crown. Well, if this be so—and I have stated nothing which is not capable of the most easy demonstration—then I say that there is a very strong reason why a clause like this should be introduced into this Bill, because at this very moment, as far as we know, exactly the same course is being pursued. It is perfectly well known to the Irish Government that many men are in Ireland now who are not there for any purpose that is advantageous to the people of Ireland or just to the Crown of the United Kingdom, and people whom it is the right of any Government in any country under such circumstances, if they can, to drive out of that country. The object of this clause is not to prevent any man from coming here for an asylum, or to speak openly his political views. It is to prevent a number of men, who are conspirators of the very worst dye, and who, apparently, are wholly oblivious of the
  280
  efforts which the English Parliament has made during the last 50 years to improve the condition of Ireland and to do justice to the people of that country, and who, forgetful of all that, go back and talk about the evils which existed 100 or 200 years ago, and are wholly forgetful of the true and wide sympathy which the people of Great Britain now exhibit to the people of Ireland. Now, Sir, on that ground I say that I support this clause, although I was one of the minority of 22 who voted against the Alien Act in 1848, because I thought it was brought before Parliament for no sufficient reasons, and that it had no foundation in the condition of the country. In fact, I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) said the Act was never put in force. Whether it was or not I am not certain; but if it was not it was because there was really no reason to put it in force, and, therefore, there was no reason for passing the law. Now the state of things is wholly different. It is not more dangerous as regards the Government—I am not speaking of this Administration, but of the Government of the Queen or of the United Kingdom. There is no power in Ireland, or in the United States, that can touch the power of the Government of the Queen. Therefore, it is not on account of anything that can be done with a view of overturning the institutions of the United Kingdom, but it is to save the country from contamination with criminals of the worst dye, and from suffering from crimes, which in this country have been heretofore, I think, altogether without example. It is, therefore, under this change of circumstances, and under the facts I have stated, and which, I believe, I have not overstated, that I feel myself at liberty—and I should be at liberty if I were not a Member of the Administration, and sitting with my Colleagues here—honestly and with perfect freedom to give my support to this clause.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, there were two points of special and particular interest in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact, of which the Committee had been lately put in mind, that he was one of the very small minority in that House who voted against the Alien Act of 1848. He (Mr. Sexton) should have

  281
  thought that was a fact the right hon. Gentleman would rather have forgotten than remembered. He himself had admitted that it was notorious that the dangers which menaced the British Crown, and every Crown in Europe in 1848, very far transcended any incident of the movement now existing in Ireland. Whereas, almost in the concluding words of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that in 1848 there was great trouble to Crowns and danger to Crowns in Europe; and, whereas he, therefore, entitled the Committee to infer there was a particular kind of danger from which the Crown of England was not free, yet he immediately afterwards placed 1848 in contrast with the present time in regard to the movement now supposed to menace England, admitting that neither in Ireland nor the United States was there any influence at work to cause danger to the British Crown. He (Mr. Sexton) had no hesitation in adopting that view; but, if that view were correct, it put in a very equivocal light the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who voted against the Alien Act in 1848, when there was danger to the British Crown, and voted for it in 1882, when no such danger could be alleged. Another remarkable feature in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his estimate of the number of people of Irish extraction on the American Continent. The right hon. Gentleman stated—and he (Mr. Sexton) was glad to hear it, and to learn that it came from a competent authority—that there were 50,000,000—
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I did not say anything of the kind.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was hasty. He (Mr. Sexton) had not finished the sentence, but had been about to say that the right hon. Gentleman informed them, on what they were led to understand was good authority, that out of a population of 50,000,000 in the United States there were 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 Irish.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I said of Irish blood. The estimate was not mine, but I quoted from an hon. Gentleman who sits on those Benches, and who has lately been to America. I think that estimate excessive, unless the hon. Member meant to include persons whose fathers and mothers were Irish or of Irish blood.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that persons who had themselves emigrated, or Americans
  282
  of Irish blood, were the same—they all felt the same, whether they or their fathers and mothers had come from Ireland. They all entertained the same view with reference to the political situation in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) had not been aware, when the right hon. Gentleman was quoting the statistics, that he was quoting them from an hon. Member who sat on those (the Opposition Home Rule) Benches. At any rate, they had come from an United States official, who, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, was very likely to be well informed.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: From someone in the Census Office, I believe.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the authority was good, and the information was likely to be correct. Well, this fact in itself—the fact that there were 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 people of Irish blood in the United States—showed what a serious thing it was to agree to such a clause as this. With regard to another observation of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Chicago Convention, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had repeated the accusation that hon. Members of that House had concerned themselves in a Convention which, so far as it was composed of subjects of the Queen, was a Convention of traitors. He (Mr. Sexton) had only to say what he had stated on a previous occasion, when the accusation was made—namely, that the hon. Members for Galway and Wexford (Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Healy) took no part in the Convention at Chicago.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Does the hon. Member mean to say that the hon. Members did not sign the call for the Convention?
  MR. HEALY: Certainly I did, and I am very proud of it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was about to come to that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to have become infected with the precipitancy of right hon. Gentlemen about him, and was not content that he (Mr. Sexton) should proceed in his own way. He had said that the hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred had not taken any part in the proceedings of the Convention, and he supposed the call for the Convention was not a part of the proceedings of the Convention. The call was published some days before the Convention. [Mr. HEALY:

  283
  Weeks.] Well, weeks. The hon. Members for Galway and Wexford were present at the Convention merely as spectators, because they were anxious to learn the views of the Irish in America with regard to Irish politics. Nothing was more natural than that the hon. Members should gratify a curiosity of that kind. The meeting at which the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had been made was a meeting entirely dissociated from the proceedings of the Convention. It was not confined to delegates to the Convention, but was a public meeting that anyone had a right to attend. No casuistry on the part of the right hon. Gentleman could confound the meetings of the Convention—in which only duly-elected delegates could take part—with open meetings, or could confound a call for a Convention with the proceedings of that Convention. He should, however, leave his hon. Friends to defend themselves, contenting himself with the general observation that they did not take part in the proceedings of the Convention. If there was any Legislature in the world which ought to be slow to pass such a clause it was this House, for no country had its people more spread over the face of the earth than this country. Englishmen had gone forth with the spirit of the race North, South, East, and West, into every country of the world, and there was no nation which depended so much on the good feeling and conciliatory spirit of other Governments as England; and the Committee, therefore, ought to consider very carefully, and hesitate much, before adopting a course which would place that country in unfriendly relations with other Governments of the world. If ever there was a time when it was injudicious to pass such a clause it was the present day. They saw that serious complications were threatened which might endanger the relations of England with other European Powers. The condition of affairs in the East was critical, and at any moment they might be plunged in a general war. England was not a Military Power, and this was not a moment—for she had enough trouble on hand already—to rush into the enactment of a clause of this character, renewing such an Act as the Alien Act, in a manner that certainly would necessitate and precipitate unfriendly relations between England and America.
  284
  The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had made a wise remark when he had asked what was the reason this clause was before the House at all? It was because of the shameful neglect of Ireland by successive English Governments. If four-score years ago any care had been devoted by the Parliament of this country to the affairs of Ireland—if the Irish people had been properly fed, if clothes had been found for them and places to live in, if, in short, they had been treated like human beings, and had not been subject to being turned out wholesale from their houses by satraps—an Alien Act of this kind need never have been revived. There had been the hunger flight of 1848; tens of thousands fled across the Atlantic only to die in the fever dens of New York. There had been evictions, threatened famines, and miseries of all kinds since, which had driven so many Irishmen to America, until now they had in that country this powerful body of 15,000,000 or 16,000,000 people of Irish blood, which suggested to the Government the necessity of reviving an Alien Act such as this. The Committee had been told that every year and every month there were coming back to Ireland from America bodies of men who, either themselves or their fathers, went out poor and hungry, coming not in distress, but, owing to that industry which the Irish race always displayed where they had a fair opportunity of enjoying the fruits of it, with a little capital. The Home Secretary had lately admitted that nothing was more touching than the liberality with which the exiles of the Irish race had sent out of their means from America aid to their friends at home. But he (Mr. Sexton) could tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a feeling as strong in the breasts of Irish exiles as love for their friends, and that was love for their country. They did not leave their native land as the Scotch emigrants left theirs or the English emigrants left England—with no hope of returning. They always looked forward to their return, and the result was that in every district in Ireland there were to be found aliens of this class. Some of them had a taste for polities, whilst others had not; but all of them were in business. They were hated by the magistrates and aristocracy. To the ordinary magistrate or landlord the fact

  285
  that a man had a soft hat, a pair of square-toed boots, and spoke with an American accent, condemned him at once—nothing to them was more horrible. They always looked upon an Irish-American as a living magazine of rebellion. Even though the Act might not be brought very extensively into operation, the fact that this full power might be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant on the private information of any person whose name would not be revealed would fill the minds of these people in Ireland—who had as good, nay, a better, right to be in Ireland than they had—with such a sense of insecurity that they would be more than likely to throw up their farms or other industries and go back to a country where they could draw their breath in peace. The Home Secretary might not be sorry to hear that; but the thousands of Irish in America, though they might grow slowly, grew surely, and if these people were driven back amongst them by the operation of this Algerine Act, it might re-act on Great Britain, and that before very long had elapsed. How would the Lord Lieutenant act? In this way. He would receive information in a private manner, and would order a man to leave the country in 24 hours. If that man still remained at the expiration of the 24 hours, the Lord Lieutenant might forcibly deport him, or throw him into gaol for a time and deport him afterwards. As to the power of appeal, it meant nothing. It meant, if it was exercised in favour of the accused, that instead of spending his time in prison until his case came before the Privy Council, he might spend it out of prison. When the accused—or person ordered to leave the Realm—appealed to the Privy Council, he would be given a summary of the matters alleged against him; but no proof of those matters had to be adduced. Unless he could prove that he was not an alien he would be deported out of the country. He (Mr. Sexton) stood on the statement he had already made, that it was impossible to call on a man to prove a negative. The Crown must prove that a man was an alien, because it might be so difficult as to be almost impossible for a man to prove that he was not. The Lord Lieutenant at the present moment had power to arrest aliens and throw them into prison. It was said that Irishmen had
  286
  pleaded that the terrible crime which had been committed in Ireland was not committed by Irish people. He certainly believed that; but whether it was or not, was it not clear that the Lord Lieutenant, at the time of the crime, had, under the Coercion Act, powers as complete for the punishment of any suspected person as he would get under this clause? Why, then, was it that during the operation of the Coercion Act only six aliens had been arrested? The Lord Lieutenant should have some evidence before him before he deported a man as an alien; and he (Mr. Sexton) was entitled to assume—and he did assume with the most perfect confidence—as the result of the operations of His Excellency under the Coercion Act, that the evidence necessary to create suspicion against aliens was not forthcoming. Under the Act, if a person could not give a satisfactory account of himself, he could be arrested and sent to gaol. There was, therefore, a complete protection against aliens as well as against all other persona in the interest of public peace and tranquillity. The history of this clause was very peculiar. Up to last night it applied solely to Ireland; but last night, by what he might call the irony of politics, a Welsh Gentleman got up to move that Irishmen should be turned out of England. It was very strange that that step had not been taken by an Englishman, and that it was reserved for one of the intelligent and enterprizing natives of the Principality to discover that England was in danger, and move to expel aliens from England. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had induced the Government, without valid reason having been shown for it, to extend the dangerous provisions of this clause to England; and if the Government, in the course of the next few years, found themselves embroiled with the American Government through the operation of the clause with regard to Irish-American citizens, they would have to thank the excessive ardour of the hon. and learned Gentleman from Wales. It was asked by an hon. Member—"Why do Irishmen interest themselves in the question of the removal of aliens from England?" The inability to understand how that was might arise from the limited capacity of the hon. Member's understanding. Was it not likely that Irish Members, who were so interested

  287
  in the freedom of their own country, would be also interested, more or less, in the freedom of others? He was against the deportation of aliens, under such an Act as this, from Ireland, England, or any other country. Yesterday, to advance the question and suit the altered circumstances of the case, it had been necessary to fabricate an argument. For the first time Members heard that crime committed in Ireland had been plotted in England. This was a strange argument, and one would have thought it would have suggested itself to those who advanced it that if aliens could not plot crime in London they could plot it in Brussels or Paris. As long as the argument was that aliens committed crime in Ireland by their own hand, it was intelligible; but if aliens out of Ireland were plotting crimes which were to be committed by other persons in Ireland, the argument for the application of this clause to England was totally lost, because crime could be plotted not only in England, but in foreign countries also. If they once admitted the two factors—the person who committed the crime and the person who plotted it—it mattered not how far away the latter was from the former. Distance made no difference in the world to an individual's capacity for plotting crime. He should like to hear something about this matter from the Government. As he had said, the effect of passing this clause would be that England would be embroiled with other countries. The British Government had allowed the scum of the earth to congregate in London. So long as this scum of the earth confined itself to plotting treason against Foreign States, and regicide against Foreign Monarchs, and revolution against Foreign Commonwealths and States, the Government of England sat by in tranquil silence. But this high-minded Government, that cared nothing whilst assassination, revolution, and anarchy was being plotted against Foreign Rulers and States in England, took fire, and proceeded to resort to violent action, as soon as they thought there was a danger to themselves. That was the measure of it—of the morality of Her Majesty's Government. They thought that by deporting Irish-American citizens—because it was said it was against them alone that this clause was levelled—they would get rid of all they had to
  288
  fear; but they would place themselves in danger of embroilment with the United States, who were not inclined to tolerate from England in the future that which they had put up with in the past. And when Russia saw them deporting American citizens, she would say—"You are turning out of your country American citizens who are plotting mischief; but you are allowing to remain persons who are plotting against our Monarch and our State;" and similar statements might be made by Germany, Austria, and other Continental countries. Appeals would be made to them from all parts of Europe to deport foreign subjects; every decaying Monarchy would apply to the Foreign Office to expel from this country persons who had sought refuge here from the tyranny of that Monarchy, and the saying that England was an asylum for the oppressed of all nations would be turned into a sarcasm and a bye-word.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that, allowing the facts to be as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, they were no answer to the contention of the opponents of the clause. The provision would not deal with them. They admitted that every Government ought to have a right in time of war or rebellion to expel either aliens or other persons whose presence in the country was dangerous to its safety. Every Government ought to have the power, under stress of circumstances, of proclaiming a state of siege or initiating martial law. On these points there was no difference between him and the Government. The difference arose as to the necessity for asking for these powers at the present time. He held that it was not necessary, and for these reasons. There was in America a large and, he regretted to say, a hostile Irish population. There were some millions of men of the Irish race who cherished towards the British Government very bitter feelings, and they had some justification for the bitterness. Many of them were the victims of past oppression; others had inherited traditions of the sufferings of their forefathers. And, to their lasting honour, they were desirous of trying to improve the conditions of those of their countrymen who remained at home. They sought to better them in two ways—By improving their social position and lifting them out of the desperate poverty into which mis-

  289
  fortune and suffering had landed them; and, in the second place, by so altering the political arrangements that the greatest disqualification for holding office in Ireland should not be the fact that a man was an Irishman. These were the two points they sought to obtain—social betterance and political power. They tried to accomplish these ends 16 or 17 years ago by an open rebellion. They failed in that effort, and that failure had had a moderating effect on Irish-American opinion. The body of the Irish in America were strongly Conservative in their political views. ["No, no!"] Well, of course, that was a matter of opinion. Some hon. Gentlemen might differ from it; but he believed he had good authority for stating that the bulk of Irish-Americans at the present time were unwilling to aid their countrymen at home in any insurrectionary attempt; but they were anxious to help them in all legal and legitimate efforts to mend their condition. He felt satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks had done injustice to Irish-Americans—no doubt unintentional injustice. [Mr. HEALY: No; intentional.] He could not endorse that opinion. He was quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman would neither do Irishmen or anyone else an intentional injustice. He might be wrong in his facts, and even if his facts were not wrong, his deductions from them might not be sound; but as to the honesty of his opinions there could not be, and he hoped there was not, any question. The right hon. Gentleman had changed greatly of late years, and the speech he had delivered that night was quite different in spirit from speeches he had delivered on previous occasions; but a man might change his opinions and moderate his tone and still be strictly conscientious and upright. No one did any good in politics by imputing bad motives to his opponents. He repeated, however, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks had spoken more harshly of the Irish in America than the facts warranted; but they could let that pass. He contended that the clause under consideration would not serve them even if the Irish-Americans entertained the desperate opinions that the Chancellor of the Duchy had attributed to them; and it was a remarkable circumstance, too, that the Government in 1866 and 1867, during the Fenian
  290
  insurrection, never applied for an Alien Act. It might have been justifiable then, and it was difficult to see how it could have been refused; but they did not apply for it then, though they were asking for it now, when the position of things was entirely different. But while he admitted that the mass of Irish in America were Conservative in their opinions, he was compelled also to admit that there was a section—he believed only a small section—that held views something like what had been attributed to the whole race. The strength of the faction that did entertain these views was grossly exaggerated. The Home Secretary was constantly warning them of the vast influence of Mr. O'Donovan Rossa and his party. He could not help smiling when the right hon. and learned Gentleman discoursed on the far-reaching powers of this terrible plotter. It was clear that the Home Secretary had an incorrect idea of the influence of Mr. O'Donovan Rossa. He had no wish to speak hard of an unfortunate man. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to contest the appropriateness of using such a word; but he never followed the cowardly practice of kicking a man when he was down, however desperate he might be. Mr. O'Donovan Rossa was a man of great natural capacity and much force of character. He had been very harshly used by the English Government. The Chancellor of the Duchy himself had pleaded on his behalf in past times, not once, but often. Our hard treatment had driven the man desperate, and, in his desperation, he had certainly propounded projects to which no man of decency could give the slightest countenance. He was quite sure there was not the most remote justification for saying that O'Donovan Rossa or his doctrines had any hold or influence with the mass of the Irish people in America. He was surrounded by a mere handful of fanatics, but there were other men much more dangerous. The full, deep stream ran noiselessly; it was shallow brooks that brawled; and behind Mr. O'Donovan Rossa there were men whose names might be unknown, who harboured projects quite as dangerous, who were far more potent, and whom the Home Secretary seemed to have overlooked. Against them he was prepared to take any step, but his argument was that the

  291
  clause under consideration could not reach those men. It was inoperative so far as they were concerned. It would would harm politicians, but it would not reach criminals. And in another way—and a serious way—it might involve this country in trouble. The Irish population wielded large political influence in America. They had a Caucus there in much greater perfection, he was glad to say, than they had in this country. The Irish could act through that Caucus, and they were sufficiently strong to make their vote worth purchasing by unscrupulous politicians in the States. Supposing aliens were unjustly and harshly driven out of Ireland, and supposing their case was taken up by the organized Irishmen in America, it was quite possible that men like Mr. Blaine or Mr. Conkling might feel it to be their interest to espouse the cause of the expelled aliens and make it a cause of quarrel with this country. A quarrel between the United States and England was a matter no man could look lightly on. Yet this was possible, more than possible, in the strained relations that existed between the Irish and the English Government. For these reasons, he contended that the Act, and especially the clause under consideration, would serve no useful purpose, and might be injurious, if not dangerous. The Home Secretary said the clause would be used temperately and leniently. He did not doubt the present Government's intentions, but that plea was not reliable. It was a remarkable fact that that had been the excuse of every despot who ever lived, and it was noticeable that men who had been the greatest despots were men of the highest personal character. He believed that even Nero was, personally, a well-intentioned and not unkindly man. He felt sure that the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary were incapable of using the power this clause would give them in a harsh or arbitrary manner; but it must be remembered that they would not have complete control. The exercise of this power would pass out of their hands into the hands of subordinates, and it would be impossible for them to control altogether those subordinates, who might use the power given them unwisely or vindictively. They had an instance of that in this country. There was a permanent Alien Act in force in the Channel
  292
  Islands. By an old law the Government of the Channel Islands could banish any person whom they considered likely to become troublesome. That power was originated when England was at war with France, and the object was to enable the Government to expel any foreigners who might visit the Islands with the intention of betraying the armaments and military strength to other nations. But although the power was given for that purpose it had been used for other purposes. It had been used repeatedly for purposes of political persecution and vindictiveness, although it was many years since there was a war in which the safety of those Islands had been jeopardized. Thirty years ago, Victor Hugo and a number of French refugees published some criticisms of Louis Bonaparte, which the Governor of the Islands disapproved of; and, in order to please the French Emperor, M. Hugo and 40 or 50 other refugees were expelled from the Islands. They had been guilty of no offence, they had committed no crime; but by the simple order of the Governor they were driven from their businesses and their homes. There were several instances of a similar kind which had occurred since then. He himself brought the case of Colonel de Faby before the House, who was expelled in consequence of a quarrel between his wife and the Judge's wife. Other cases where this power to expel aliens from the Channel Islands had been used injuriously or cruelly had been brought before the House by Mr. Roebuck and by Mr. Joseph Hume. He feared that if this power was given for Ireland it might be used in a like manner, and that innocent and well-meaning persons would suffer injustice through its operations. There were no conceivable grounds for its application to this country. No man could say with truth that there was sympathy with crime of any kind. Any man guilty of an offence, whether against the Government or an individual, if brought to trial, and there was trustworthy evidence, would have a sentence recorded against him, and would receive the prescribed punishment. Therefore, there was not the slightest ground for adopting such exceptional powers in Great Britain. Yet they were going to apply the Alien Act to this part of the United Kingdom as well as to Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen had complained of the

  293
  slow progress made with this Bill. They were told that discussions were unnecessarily prolonged, and that the speeches were prolix and irrelevant. But surely hon. Members had failed to realize the fact that last night, without any warning, the Government had, in a couple of hours, and in the presence of only one-third of the House, adopted an Amendment which practically re-enacted an Act of Parliament, which, if it had come before them in the form of a Bill, would have been a month at least before it passed through its various stages, and yet which, by their action of the previous night, would have effect as soon as this Bill was passed. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act of 1848 was passed to check the spread of Republican opinions. He knew that that was one of Sir George Grey's statements when the Bill was introduced; but Lord Russell, a Member of the same Government, said it was not only intended for the purpose of checking what he called dangerous opinions, but also to enable the Government to break up the haunts of assassins. It was the general belief in 1848 that there were societies formed by assassins who were plotting in all corners of Europe—in England and London as well as other places—and the Bill was intended to deal with them as well as their opinions. But the circumstances in 1848 and now were widely different. Then Kings were being dethroned, Constitutions overturned, and the whole Continent was in a state of violent political upheaval. No one, however, could maintain that any such disturbance prevailed now. The Continent was in a state of political quietude. It was true that there was a sort of social propaganda going forward, which was influencing affairs in Austria, Germany, and Russia. The opinions disseminated might be right or they might be wrong; he was not contesting either their accuracy or utility. They, no doubt, aimed a blow at many cherished convictions; but he did not suppose that the Government or anyone else at this time of the day would attempt to check the spread of these opinions by penal enactments. They might try, but they would certainly fail, as many other and stronger men than they had failed many times before. The Government might be all-powerful in their own estimation; but it was not in
  294
  the power of either Monarchs or Ministers to stab a sentiment, to shoot an opinion, or to imprison a thought. The only way in which they could grapple with a propaganda of that kind was to show its incorrectness, demonstrate its impracticability, and do justice. They had heard a good deal of late about the decrease of Liberal opinion both in the country and in Parliament—he might almost describe it as the decadence of Liberal opinion. Nothing more disheartening to earnest Radicals than the speeches which had been delivered during that debate could be conceived. There was no man for whom he had a greater respect than his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He was an admirable Representative of a form of political thought that had done vast service to the State in times past, and was still capable of rendering efficient aid. Personally, he was incapable of either intolerance or illiberality; and yet, from the speech which the hon. Member had made, arguments in support of the most harsh form of arbitrary rule could be deducted. That hon. Member had a famous ancestor, who had in that House pleaded for principles which he and a few other Members were at that time championing under such disadvantages and with such little encouragement. If anyone would compare the speeches of the Whitbread of former times, when he opposed the re-imposition of the Alien Act, with the speech of the hon. Member last night, the difference between them would register the descent in Liberal principles in that space of time. He regretted that the hon. Member should have lent the countenance of his name to such a clause as this. It was a fact, he feared—a melancholy fact—that Englishmen generally were now so far removed from the day when they had to struggle and suffer for their liberty that they had become indifferent to the obligations it imposed, and careless of the responsibilities its possession threw upon them.
  MR. HEALYsaid, this was the third or fourth time that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had treated the House to a re-hash of his views of the Chicago Convention. He should have thought that this, like another subject, was somewhat musty; but, of course, seeing the want of argument

  295
  which the Government had shown all through the discussion on this Bill, and seeing also the poor figure the Chancellor of the Duchy had played of late, he did not think the Committee could he surprised if the right hon. Gentleman had felt bound to fall back, for the third or fourth time, on such a small matter as the Chicago Convention. Those who knew the character of the right hon. Gentleman in that House, and who had seen how men could play the part of political renegados, did not feel concerned in that House to take any notice of anything the right hon. Gentleman might say. But that right hon. Gentleman, whose acts were not so closely watched outside the House as inside, might still have something of authority, and on the chance of that he he would just make a slight reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman taunted Irish Members with being traitors to the Crown. What was the Crown? Was it the Mace on the Table? Was it the Sovereign of these Realms? He remembered, and, no doubt, the Chairman, as a Caledonian, remembered, the words of the old Jacobite song—
  "Wha' the De'il ha' ye gotten for a King,
  But a wee wee German lairdie."
  That was the view Predecessors of some hon. Gentlemen in that House took of the Crown. But when he heard the Crown referred to in vague and shadowy terms, he was bound to confess that he did not know what it meant. But he did know to whom his allegiance was due; his allegiance was due to his countrymen. His first allegiance was due to his country, and his last allegiance was due to his countrymen; and any allegiance that stood in the way of the betterance, improvement, and advancement of his country he should despise. He had been told that he signed the Call of the Chicago Convention—proud he was thereof. He had been told that wild words were spoken at that Convention. Wild words were spoken in that House; but was the Chancellor of the Duchy responsible for everything that occurred in that House? And was he responsible for everything that occurred at the Chicago Convention? Or was Her Most Gracious Majesty responsible for everything that occurred in Parliament, because she "signed the
  296
  Call" for the meeting of Parliament? That was an argument worthy of the later years of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, reproducing, as it did for the third or fourth time, his reference to the Convention, wanted one element of its own old vigour. The right hon. Gentleman should have reproduced his old reference to the "cocked hat." He (Mr. Healy) had denied that matter half-a-dozen times, and still the Chancellor of the Duchy had repeated it.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I never mentioned that but once, and I never referred to the Convention but once in this House. Perhaps the hon. Member might be a little more accurate in his statements.
  MR. HEALYsaid, perhaps he could brighten up the memory of the right hon. Gentleman. It was true he had put in a saving clause, with the ingenuity of a Chancellor of the Duchy, that he had never mentioned the matter in that House but once; but if he did not mention it in the House, he had mentioned it outside—at Birmingham, for instance; and it was somewhat disingenuous of the Chancellor of the Duchy to get up and attempt to bowl him over with the statement that he had never mentioned the matter in the House.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Which statement?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would proceed.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Which statement does the hon. Member mean? Does he mean that about the "cocked hat," or about the Chicago Convention? With regard to the question of the "cocked hat," I never mentioned that in the House, but I mentioned it once at Birmingham; and the Convention I mentioned once at Birmingham and once before in this House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, including the present occasion, that made three times altogether; and he was thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for proving his case. He had said the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the matter three times; and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it once at Birmingham, once in that House before, and once again to-night. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's speech was not complete, as a whole, without some reference to the "cocked hat," seeing that each time he had mentioned the Convention he had

  297
  mentioned the "cocked hat." Each time the Chancellor of the Duchy had mentioned it he had denied the matter; but what was the use of his denying it? The Chancellor of the Duchy had the monopoly of assertion, and it was a case of—
  "When I ope' my mouth let no dog bark."
  When the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke, no man must contradict him. He himself had no abstract respect for Chancellors of Duchies, or any other holder of a sinecure; and he would like to recall the attention of the Committee to a true statement of what took place at the Chicago Convention. When he landed in America the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and most of the friends he had in the world, were in gaol. It would have been his pride and pleasure to have been there with them; but, by the special request of his Friends around him, he went to America, and if they had asked him to go to the North Pole he would have gone. When he landed in America Ireland was in a condition in which all hope of improvement was suppressed, when nothing but the British Government, backed by laws and bayonets and buckshot, had any sway in the country.
  An hon. MEMBER rose to Order, and said: Is the hon. Member addressing himself to the subject before the Committee? The hon. Member seems to be addressing himself to the subject of the Convention.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford was replying to the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster respecting the Chicago Convention.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was all the same to him whether he was ruled out of Order or not, for he never had desired to speak in that House as a favour, and he did not desire to now. He would go on if he was allowed. When he landed in America every honest man he knew was in gaol, while village ruffians and village tyrants were at the head of affairs. No man dared open his mouth, and all honest attempt at the expression of opinion was crushed, and a person called Forster was signing warrants on the sole authority of his name to send better men than himself to prison for 18 months.
  COLONEL STANLEYrose to Order, and asked whether a reference to a right hon. Member of that House by name by another Member of the House in connection with matters of administration on the part of the Government was in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member had referred to a Member of the Government who was in Ireland when he landed in America, and did not refer to him as a Member of this House. Of course, everyone understood to whom he referred, and I think the hon. Member himself must feel that his expression was indecorous.
  MR. HEALY, continuing, said, when he landed in America a number of Irishmen in New York came round him, and suggested that, as the landlords were getting power to turn people out of their holdings, and were being urged to do so by the person to whom he had referred, there should be a demonstration of the strength of feeling by men of Irish blood in America to show that, no matter what troubles and trials their countrymen might be going through across the ocean, there were men who had Irish blood in their veins, and who knew how to give something in the nature of sympathy and support to their fellow-countrymen. He signed the Call for the Convention, appealing to every man who had sympathy with liberty and who hated oppression, and he did so in conjunction with three of the noblest men either on the American Continent or any other Continent—namely, Patrick Collins, Boyle O'Reily, an ex-Fenian convict, and Patrick Ford, of The Irish World. That Convention assembled, but he never opened his mouth at it. He had told the Chancellor of the Duchy that before; and, although his word might not amount to much in that House, yet wherever the speech of the right hon. Gentleman went, whether in Ireland or America, his denial would be thought as much of as any affirmation made by the right hon. Gentleman. That Convention met, and, although he was not present all the time, no doubt there were wild words used; but, had they been ten times as wild, he himself was no more responsible for them than hon. Members on the other side of the House who disliked them. He thought it was a mistake to bark unless people could bite; and, therefore, he condemned

  299
  absurd rubbish of that kind. There were speeches delivered at a meeting in Chicago held independently of the Convention at which he was present, and everything he had said he would stick to and maintain, and was not ashamed of it. If any hon. Member would quote his words in that House, he was prepared to repeat them here, or in America, or anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had stated that he had used words in that House wilder than any he had used in Ireland, and that in America he had used words wilder than in Ireland or in that House. That was malevolently incorrect. The masses in America did not want wild words. On the contrary, dealing with the American-Irish as a whole, he found them the most Conservative body of men he had ever met. Every Irishman in America engaged in this movement had some little property, and there was nothing made a man so Conservative as the possession of property; and everyone of them, when people went in for stuff about the human race, knew that charity began at home, and that the necessary thing for people to do was to put their own house in order first before troubling themselves about the human race. Therefore, he maintained that the Irish people in America were the most Conservative men in the world, and a dozen times more so than the Irish in England; and when he heard Chancellors of Duchies talking about the dynamitism of Irishmen in America he could only pity their ignorance.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to say something with reference to the Chicago Convention. It was true that he was one of the signatories of the Call of that Convention, but it was untrue that he made any speech. Some of his countrymen called for him to speak at the Convention, but he declined; and some of the expressions to which the Chancellor of the Duchy had referred as having been made at the Convention he himself had not heard. He would state what took place. At the close of the Convention a subscription was called for, and, as he had gone to America mainly to raise subscriptions for the Irish people, when the subscriptions began to be announced as a matter of business, he was anxious as to the amounts; and, in consequence, he paid
  300
  no attention to any observations which accompanied the subscriptions. He did not consider himself at all bound by any expressions used by persons at the Convention; and he could tell the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had a far longer acquaintance with politics than he himself, that by calling attention to foolish and stupid remarks, he gave them an importance they otherwise would never have had. The right hon. Gentleman was in Dublin some years ago and attended a meeting at the Mechanics' Institute. At that meeting the right hon. Gentleman was very greatly interrupted. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was in Dublin at the time, and he well remembered what happened; at least, he remembered reading the newspaper reports of the proceedings at the meeting. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the disorderly cries at the meeting at the Mechanics' Institute in Dublin, any more than he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was responsible for the cries from persons at the Chicago Convention, who very probably belonged to the same school of political thought as the men who interrupted the Chancellor of the Duchy at the Dublin meeting. He understood the charge was that his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) and himself (Mr. O'Connor) appealed to the Irish people in America for aid. Was that wrong? If it were wrong, he was inspired to appeal for aid by the eloquent words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman, for when he was in Dublin once he wound up a powerful speech by saying that—
  "When the Irish peasant looks for food, freedom, and blessing, his eyes are turned towards the setting sun."
  It was towards the setting sun he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) went to get assistance for those people who the right hon. Gentleman was, under the Coercion Act of last year, depriving of food, freedom, and blessing. That was not the only answer he had for the right hon. Gentleman. He supposed that by attacking the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and himself (Mr. O'Connor) for the third time the Chancellor of the Duchy thought he would divert attention from some passages in his own career. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question raised by this clause with regard to aliens was no new question in English politics; the

  301
  right hon. Gentleman knew very well that there was a time when this question shook the country to its very centre; there was a time when responsible Ministers of the day—just like the responsible Ministers of to-day—declared that London was being used as a place in which to hatch murderous conspiracies. Hon. Gentlemen talked of the atrocities that had been committed or menaced by O'Donovan Rossa and his confederates; but even what these men had done or contemplated sank into insignificance before the terrible deeds of Orsini at Paris, when 16 persons were killed and 120 injured. At that time a Conspiracy to Murder Bill was brought in to prohibit assassins plotting in this City. What did the present Prime Minister and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster do on that occasion? They spoke against the Bill; the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy seconded the Amendment against the Bill, and he was one of the Tellers in the Division in which the proposal of the Government was defeated. The proposal was that measures should be taken to assist the Executive of the day to detect and put down murderous conspiracies in London against the Emperor of the French. This clause carefully guarded, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, the right of asylum. It was only to be used, said the Prime Minister, against those who were plotting against the internal peace of the Kingdom. The meaning of that was, that the Nihilist in London could plot his murderous schemes against the Czar of Russia, could lay his plans for blowing up Palaces and streets by the score, and the detectives of Scotland Yard, even if they saw him doing these things, were instructed by this clause to walk by. The German Socialist might plot another attack to put—in the words of Prince Bismarck—the Emperor of Germany in his blood, and the detective of Scotland Yard must pass on the other side of the street, and not look at him. As murderous conspirators were defended and sheltered by the two right hon. Gentlemen in 1858, they were sheltered and protected now by the clause to which the right hon. Gentlemen were giving their support. If Foreign Governments demanded the extradition of their subjects whom they suspected of plotting murder against
  302
  them, and if the English Government based their refusal on the sacred right of asylum, Foreign Governments would have a right to turn back to the pages of history and look up the votes of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and Foreign Governments and Foreign Sovereigns could not be blamed if they repeated the old proverb, that "Curses, like chickens, come home to roost."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 30: Majority 102.

  AYES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Agnew, W.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Allen, H. G.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Armitage, B.

  Armitstead, G.

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

  Balfour, J. B.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Borlase, W. C.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Brand, H. R.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Brinton, J.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Holms, J.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Howard, E. S.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  James, Sir H.

  Jenkins, D. J.

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

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Kinnear, J.

  Causton, R. K.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

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

  Clarke, J. C.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Cohen, A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Collins, T.

  Lloyd, M.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Courtney, L. H.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Mackie, R. B.

  Cropper, J.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Crum, A.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Davey, H.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Dodds, J.

  Martin, R. B.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Duff, R. W.

  Mason, H.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Ferguson, R.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

  Newport, Viscount

  Fowler, R. N.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Fry, T.

  Parker, C. S.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Pease, A.

  Grant, A.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Grant, D.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  303

  Porter, A. M.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Thornhill, T.

  Rathbone, W.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Richardson, T.

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

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Round, J.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Warton, C. N.

  Rylands, P.

  Waugh, E.

  Samuelson, H.

  Whitley, E.

  Schreiber, C.

  Whitworth, B.

  Shield, H.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Winn, R.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Stanton, W. J.

  TELLERS.

  Stewart, J.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Kensington, Lord

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Blake, J. A.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Byrne, G. M.

  O'Connor, A.

  Callan, P.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Commins, A.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Corbet, W. J.

  Cowen, J.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Dillon, J.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Gill, H. J.

  Sexton, T.

  Gray, E. D.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Healy, T. M.

  Storey, S.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Lalor, R.

  Synan, E. J.

  Leamy, E.

  M'Carthy, J.

  TELLERS.

  Martin, P.

  Power, R.

  Marum, E. M.

  Sheil, E.

  Metge, R. H.

  Clause 13 (Power of justices to summon witnesses).
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 7, line 1, after "committed," to insert "and sworn information thereof made." It might be said that this clause commenced the inquisitorial part of the Bill, and for the purpose of confining the operation of the Bill within certain specified limits he introduced this Amendment. Unless sworn information were given as to the offence, it would be totally impossible for the magistrate, on hearing of an offence, to know what the character of it was. If such information were supplied the magistrate would know what witnesses would be required. He did not see what possible objection Her Majesty's Government could have to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 1, after the word "committed," to insert the words "and sworn information thereof made."—(Mr. Synan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DILLONsaid, it surely could not be possible that the Government were not going to answer his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan); he waited to see whether any Member of the Government showed any wish to rise. He could hardly bring himself to believe that the Government would refuse to accept the Amendment. Clauses 13 and 14 must be read together, and they constituted the most odious provision that could be imagined. The real object of these clauses was to extract evidence from unwilling witnesses by a process which was prevalent in the Middle Ages. If any Justice believed, upon the information of a policeman, that a person was about to abscond, or had absconded, he might issue his warrant for the arrest of such person, and cause the man to be imprisoned until the time at which he was bound by his recognizances to give evidence. Before they went any further, he wanted the Government to explain what was meant by offence. By offence, did they mean any of the offences which were detailed in any of the Blue Books on Irish outrages? Would it be considered an offence to break a window or to fire a shot outside a house at night? Suppose it had been reported to the police or to the Resident Magistrate that a number of shots had been fired outside a house at night, and that warning had been given to the inhabitants of the house not to pay rent, a Resident Magistrate might, in such a case, say, as it had often been said by men in high position, that the whole population of the district were privy to the transaction; and the magistrate, without more ado, and without any sworn information, might summon as a witness any individuals residing in the district who he might think obnoxious persons. The magistrate would, no doubt, summon the men who were the officers of the late Land League, or men who were prominent in the recent political movement. The next process would be that the Head Constable would, under the direction of the magistrate, say the men were going to abscond; and the next step would be that the men would be committed to prison as absconding witnesses, when, perhaps, no offence at all had been committed. These clauses—13 and 14—would constitute a Coercion Act fundamentally worse, and more unlimited in its action,

  305
  than the Coercion Act now drawing to a close. The 13th and 14th clauses of this Bill would form an Act in themselves much worse, because more unchecked, than the Protection of Person and Property Act, which that House and the Government now contended was positively useless. What was to be considered an offence? Some explanation must be given upon that head, because, as the clause now stood, an offence might mean a quarrel between two drunken men, might, in fact, mean anything that a magistrate chose to call an offence. He and his hon. Friends were also entitled to demand that the very reasonable words suggested by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) should be here inserted. Of course, nothing would convince him, in the least degree, of the wisdom of these clauses; and he would take another opportunity of speaking upon the principle embodied in them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he noticed that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had upon the Paper a second Amendment, in which he asked that the information should be information against the person charged. This clause did not contemplate that there would be any person charged with the offence; and if the hon. Member would understand distinctly that this Amendment must not be regarded as having any connection with the second Amendment of which he had given Notice, the Government would be disposed to meet the views the hon. Gentleman had expressed. Bearing in mind that the object of the clause was to get evidence, it occurred to the Government that there was no objection that there should be information brought to a magistrate in some way that an offence had been committed. It would, however, be necessary to alter slightly the first line of the clause, so that it would read thus—"Where sworn information has been made that an offence has been committed;" and he would suggest that such an Amendment should be adopted. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had asked for some definition of "offence." He (the Attorney General) would be glad to adopt words making it clear that offences under this clause should not include such minor offences as those mentioned by the hon. Member; but
  306
  beyond that he could not go. If the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, and move "sworn information has been made of the offence committed," it might be accepted.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to know whether treason-felony would be included—whether the neighbours round about would be called to give evidence as to that?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he saw no reason why they should go beyond the words of the Act of 1870—namely, the words "felony and misdemeanour." He would not give a positive pledge, but he should think these words would be sufficient.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean to exclude the words "treason-felony."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)stated that he had not said that.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) object to the suggestion that had been made by the Attorney General. It might be desirable to remind the Committee that in the Peace Preservation Act of his (Mr. Lowther's) own Government the words of the Act of 1870 were followed. The 13th section which was then re-enacted ran thus—"Where in any proclaimed district it shall appear that any felony or misdemeanour has been committed." The clause, he thought, ought to be amended, as suggested, on Report.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether the clause was to deal with the question of treason or treason-felony? The object was to get evidence against a person who was unknown at the time that evidence was required. In cases of treason and treason-felony the traitor was known.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would accept the Amendment of the Attorney General, which would retain the words—"Where sworn information has been made that an offence has been committed."
  MR. J. LOWTHEERsaid, he did not wish to anticipate the result of the deliberations of the Government on this matter; but he must protest against the doctrine which was now laid down, that it was always known who had committed

  307
  treason-felony. He believed there had been a great number of acts of treason-felony, where the person who had committed them had not been convicted, or known quite so rapidly as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think. He (Mr. Lowther) must caution the hon. and learned Member against thinking that he could deal with the clause on the assumption that he could always lay his hands immediately upon the person who had been guilty of treason-felony. He thought he noticed laughter emanating from below the Gangway when the hon. and learned Gentleman gave vent to his very confident expression as to the capacity of the Executive to lay hold of persons guilty of treason-felony. He thought he saw symptoms of merriment amongst hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. ["No, no!"] At any rate, he was right when he said that the term "offence" included "treason" and "treason-felony" as much as any other offence. He hoped that no distinction would be drawn between any other "offence" and treason or treason-felony.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order. When we have done with this Amendment, I have a manuscript Amendment to define offences.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped that it would not be required that these prosecutions should be initiated by private prosecutors. When an attack had been made on an individual, that person might not in every case care to come forward to prosecute.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The policeman will swear the information.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the policeman might not have seen the offence committed. If he could make inquiries, and, on the result of those inquiries, swear an information, it would be all right.
  Amendment (Mr. Attorney General) agreed to.
  Amendment (Mr. Synan) negatived.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, following the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), had rather anticipated the discussion as to the Amendment which he (Mr. O'Connor) now proposed. As the clause
  308
  stood, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, for knocking down a hay-stack, knocking down a wall, or interfering with a telegraph wire—each offence being amongst the smallest which could be committed, although they were put in the Government Returns, and swelled the grand total upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had obtained his Coercion Act—a man could be put in prison. It would be irrational for an offence of such a trivial character to justify a resort to the stringent penalties imposed under the Bill. That which the right hon. Gentleman would substitute would go by no means far enough; and he thought he could carry the right hon. Gentleman along with him, and everyone concerned, when he said that these severe Clauses 13 and 14 gave power to bring witnesses into Court before anyone had been charged with an offence, and to imprison them if a policeman or other official entertained a fear that they would abscond. It could never have been intended to put these powers in operation except in regard to offences of a very serious character. The right hon. Gentleman thought he met their view by saying he would take the definition given in the Act of 1870—namely, the offence "being felony or misdemeanour." ["No, no!"] Well, if he did the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, he would withdraw the statement. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the definition would practically amount to this, that the offence would be in the nature of felony or misdemeanour. "Felony or misdemeanour" was a very wide term. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the law to say what was or what was not a misdemeanour; but he believed it would include very trivial as well as very grave offences. He thought, however, that the same serious offences which had suggested the suppression of trial by jury should be those which would justify the new form of inquisition proposed in this clause. There were two sets of words which the Government could take their choice of. He would propose that either these words should be inserted, "the said offence being an offence under Clause 2 of this Act," or the words which formed the Amendment he was now moving—

  309
  "The said offence being murder or manslaughter, or an attempt to murder, or an aggravated crime of violence against the person, or an attack on a dwelling-house."
  He had left out the words "treason or treason-felony," because, in the first place, he did not think that at this stage of the Bill they ought to encumber it with controversial matter; and the question whether treason or treason-felony were or were not offences which should be brought under this Bill was a question of serious disputation, serious differences of opinion existing with regard to it. The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) gave a definition, in an Amendment he was about to move, which was even more objectionable than that offered by the right hon. Gentleman, because "an offence under this Act" might be of a most trivial character. A meeting might be announced, it might be prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant, and 20,000 people might attend, knowing of that prohibition. Every one of these people would be guilty of an offence under the Act, and, that being the case, the landlord would have the full right under the clause to summon witnesses before the Court, and, on the information of a police constable that the witnesses were likely to abscond, to imprison them. No doubt, to give a subscription to the Ladies' Land League would be constituted into "an offence under this Act," and would enable a magistrate to put this clause into operation. If the Amendment, therefore, of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon were proceeded with, and were to be accepted, it would give more power—and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would take these remarks in a good-humoured spirit—than even the voracious appetite of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would demand.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 1, after the word "committed," to insert the words "the said offence being murder or manslaughter, or an attempt to murder, or an aggravated crime of violence against the person, or an attack on a dwelling house."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment, and he thought he had
  310
  explained why. The word "offence" was too wide, as it would include matter of a minor character. It would include, for instance, a case of a person being intoxicated, or a case in which a person would be fined 5s. for disorderly language. At the same time, as they were creating new offences, there might be some things which were only misdemeanours which it might be necessary to deal with under the clause. He wished hon. Gentlemen to accept the view that minor offences would not be included under the clause; but the Government wished to have time for consideration before they decided what offences to include. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connor) moved manuscript Amendments on the spur of the moment, and the Government could not accept them.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, in regard to the offences to be included, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not lose sight of the desirability of including felony and treason-felony. The hon. and learned Member had said that cases of drunkenness would come under the term "offence," and it was not desirable to include such trivial matters. He (Mr. Lowther) would have thought that such points might reasonably be left to the common sense of the judicial tribunals; but, at any rate, whatever the definition was, it should be wide enough to include treason and treason-felony.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, this Amendment had been drawn in haste; still, it involved an important principle on which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must have an opinion. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Lowther) said treason or treason-felony should be included, and on that point they would like to have some assurance. The clause in itself seemed to be of little moment; but, certainly, if it was to apply to cases of treason or treason-felony, it would be very objectionable. The object of the Amendment was not so much to exclude the minor offences referred to by the Attorney General as to get rid of the offences of treason and treason-felony. Nothing that the Government could do would enable them to extract evidence from unwilling witnesses.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the concession the Government had promised they worded by saying "felony or misde-

  311
  meanour under this Act." Felony and misdemeanour "under the Act" were defined in the Act, and there was no difficulty in ascertaining what they were. Treason and treason-felony and the smaller offences would be left out. The Attorney General would hardly consider that a minor offence would be one for which a man could receive six months' imprisonment, yet a person could receive that punishment for a misdemeanour. It would be dangerous to leave this power to the magistrates in regard to offences for which a person could receive six months' imprisonment; therefore, he would suggest that the word "felony" should be used. Those who were well acquainted with Irish history would know that a very evil effect might be given to these clauses, and that there was a danger under them of the revival of the objectionable system of picketing practised under earlier Coercion Acts.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the Attorney General had met them very fairly on this question of the offences; and, so far as he was concerned, he did not wish to press the matter further. The hon. and learned Gentleman's contention was a very reasonable one, that he required some time to consider what his definition should be. They, of course, reserved their right to discuss that definition; and he would only say that he hoped the Government would not be led away by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Lowther), and be induced to include treason and treason-felony in the clause. If they were induced to include those offences, they would render the clause exceedingly harsh. He regarded the whole clause as utterly indefensible and atrocious; but if the Government did not adhere to their original intention, and confine the section simply to certain agrarian offences; if they included treason and treason-felony, it would simply amount to saying that the whole population of Ireland might be locked up and kept in prison until they swore against each other. They were told that half the population of Ireland were implicated in treason, and magistrates would be found ready to act upon such a theory.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should be quite willing to adopt the course approved of by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), if the
  312
  hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were a little more definite in his statement. To ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept an Amendment suddenly put before him, and only in manuscript, was making, no doubt, a large demand upon him: but, at the same time, he wanted him to know what their view of the clause was, and to let them know what his (the Attorney General's) view of it was. The hon. and learned Member had still left himself a wide scope. Perhaps that had been his object. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Yes.] The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was. He would understand that, on the other hand, it was their object to leave him as little scope as possible. The Government ought to strictly define what their position was, for they were putting off so many questions to the Report stage that, even with Mr. Speaker in the Chair and hon. Members having only the right of speaking once, there would be such a large number of points to consider that many days would be occupied in that stage. The Government had promised to exclude minor offences; but many major offences were so trivial that they ought not to come within the clause, and their inclusion would be a source of immense injustice and oppression. He was sure, knowing the kind of people who would have to administer the Act, it would be considered an offence for which six months' imprisonment might be awarded for a person to attend a meeting which had been prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant, and deliver a vehement speech at such meeting. If a person did act in that way, and he was not known to the police, and his name did not get into the newspapers, would the Attorney General say that everyone who attended that meeting, and listened to that speech, would be liable to be called upon to give evidence, and to be imprisoned until they did do so at the behest of a policeman? He understood by the gestures of the hon. and learned Gentleman that that kind of case would not come within the operation of this clause; but it would be a serious offence under the Bill, for if a man put forward a "Boycotting" notice, which turned out to be ineffective, he would unquestionably get six months of hard labour under the clause. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman contend that

  313
  posting a single "Boycotting" placard, without the offender being discovered, ought to justify a magistate in putting every man in prison who might be suspected by the police? He did not think he was putting too much pressure on the hon. and learned Gentleman when he asked him for a closer definition.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government had spoken very clearly on this matter, and it would be impossible at that moment to draw up an Amendment. The Government would bring this matter up on Report, and quite enough had been said to enable the Committee to thoroughly understand the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the general views of hon. Members in the House; and, therefore, the Government had all the evidence they required.
  MR. MARUMsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) and himself had put down Amendments to this clause which would enable magistrates to summon any person whom they had reason to suppose was able to give material evidence; but, as the clause stated, the word "evidence" included not merely evidence under the 1st section, but also under the 4th section, such, for instance, as exclusive dealing; so that to allow a magistrate a capricious right to summon whom he pleased without something like sworn information would be to give too extensive a power. Their object was to limit the discretion of magistrates, and not allow them to summon persons arbitrarily. The only difference between himself and his hon. and learned Friend was that his hon. and learned Friend required that there should be some reasonable grounds, while he only desired that there should be some sworn statement.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought it might save time if the Government clearly understood that the Committee did not want this provision put off to Report. It was utterly unnecessary to reserve this clause for Report. If it was reserved, there would then be another disquisition as to what was felony, and what was misdemeanour. What was wanted was a strong Executive in Ireland, and the magistrates must be trusted. If they did not trust the Executive in Ireland this Bill would be no use. He urged that there should be an end of this perpetual reserve by the Government to Report, while crime was stalk-
  314
  ing through Ireland, and murder was committed day after day.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought it must be instructive to the Committee to hear the views of an hon. Gentleman whose mind was so thoroughly saturated with a knowledge of Ireland. With regard to offences under the clause, they would be proveable by the police under Part II., or by witnesses who were willing to come forward. He merely asked the Attorney General to consider that point, and would simply add, with regard to offences under Part I.—treason, murder, felony, arson, and so on—if a magistrate had the right to forcibly examine witnesses, he would then have all the right required; and he thought his hon. Friend was logically consistent when he asked that this power should not be exercised in regard to those other offences with regard to which trial by jury was suspended,
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he had an Amendment for the purpose of limiting the inquisitorial power of the magistrates to prevent the law being pushed beyond its present operation. At present there was no power to summon witnesses with regard to offences unless some person was charged. The words of this section were perfectly new to the law of this country, and practically introduced the law of France, under which magistrates and Judges had power, the very moment a charge was made, to summon any persons they liked to give evidence in respect to the charge, and, in fact, to morally compel them to give evidence. He proposed to omit from the section the words, "although no person be charged," and substitute, "any person charged with the commission of such an offence." If the section was left as it stood, what would be the consequence? A certain offence or crime might be committed, and the magistrate would have power immediately to summon everybody in the district and to examine them on oath in respect to the offence. But under the present law in England that could not be done unless there was some person before a magistrate charged with an offence. In that case the magistrate had power to summon witnesses in respect to the offence, or to receive evi-

  315
  dence in favour of the accused. Under this section, however, a magistrate would have power to summon everybody, and if the persons summoned did not wish to give evidence he could commit them to prison. Then, in the other section, if a witness absconded the magistrate had the power to hunt him out and to incarcerate him, and probably that person might be suspected of being the very man who had committed the offence, although there was no charge against any individual, and that was an inquisitorial power foreign to our law, and a power which certainly would not be accepted by any people in England. The question was, whether they ought to do in Ireland what they would not do in England? He admitted there was a clause in the Act of 1870 similar to this; but what had been the effect of that clause? Had it been of any benefit whatever? Had any evidence been obtained by means of that clause? Was the Solicitor General for Ireland aware of any evidence obtained by any such means? The witnesses obtained under the Act of 1870 were persons who voluntarily came forward, or who were paid to come forward; but this inquisitorial power, without being limited to a case where someone was charged, would place the inhabitants of a whole district in the hands of a magistrate, and might have the effect of inducing a man to give evidence which was not honest evidence in order to escape imprisonment. To prevent the people of a whole district being harassed, he moved this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 3, to leave out from "although," to the word "offence," in line 4 inclusive, in order to insert the words "before whom any person is charged with the commission of such offence,"—(Mr. Synan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the Committee quite understood the object of the Amendment; but the speech of the hon. Member had been made too soon. If the Amendment was inserted that would only declare that the magistrate had the same power he now possessed. A magistrate could summon witnesses, and that would be the only
  316
  effect of this clause if the Amendment was adopted. It would only be declaring that when a person was charged the magistrate could summon witnesses. That could be done now; and the object of the clause was that a magistrate should have the power to summon witnesses whether there was any person before him or not. The Amendment would render the clause nugatory. The Criminal Code dealt with this question with a view of applying it generally.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was very glad to hear from the Attorney General that it was proposed to extend, this power under the Criminal Code, because this clause was one of the most valuable propositions under the Bill, as being necessary not only for this Bill, but for the general law of the land. He believed the English law was the only Criminal Law known in which there was no provision of this kind; and he certainly thought there ought to be a provision in the law for making inquiries before any person was accused. It was not necessary to go to France for that system, because it prevailed in Scotland, and no one in Scotland had suggested that it was a tyrannical provision.
  MR. DILLONinquired what would be the value of evidence given by Americans if they were summoned? He was afraid this clause, in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, would not be used for the alleged purpose, but for other purposes. It was the common custom in Ireland for people to make the most wholesale assertions as to the knowledge or complicity on the part of other persons in crimes; and he had heard it stated that the whole population, in many cases, were acquainted with the perpetrators of these crimes. He would not now enter into an argument upon that statement; but he mentioned it to show the spirit in which this clause might be worked in the present condition of Ireland. If a magistrate was under the impression that everybody in a district knew all about a crime, then this clause would become a tremendous weapon. In Scotland or France such a power would be used only to discover crime, and not to inflict hardship except in exceptional cases; but in Ireland, where Party feeling ran to such heights, and such wild allegations were made against the population, these two clauses,

  317
  working together, would be turned into a fresh Coercion Act, and people who were members of Land Leagues would be called upon to give evidence immediately an outrage occurred, and if they refused they might be committed to prison for two or three months pending the Assizes. The things that had been done during the last year fully bore out that view; and, no matter what the opinion of hon. Members might be as to the abstract justification for such a power in the country where society existed in a normal condition, this clause was exceptionally objectionable in Ireland, and, in fact, amounted to the re-enactment of the Protection Act of last year in a much more objectionable form.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not know that the fact of this system existing in Scotland would recommend the clause to the Committee. The hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) said nobody complained of the system in Scotland; but he surely forgot the essential difference between Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland public opinion controlled the magistrates in working this power, and if the power was used in a harsh, and cruel and arbitrary or capricious manner, except as against Irishmen, public opinion would correct such action; but in Ireland public opinion might condemn the action of landlords, but the landlords would be eulogized by the Treasury and encouraged in their action, and that was the danger of the clause. The clause left the magistrates' arbitrary power uncontrolled by public opinion and encouraged by a Coercionist Government. The Attorney General said this power existed in the Criminal Code, and quoted the case of France; but he understood that the difference between the English Code and the French system was not that magistrates could summon witnesses when there was nobody charged, but that the magistrate could examine a prisoner charged, as he could not in England. He did not object to the power to examine a prisoner who was charged with an offence; but he did object to giving the power to extort evidence when there was no person charged. He took issue with the Attorney General upon his statement that the Amendment would practically have the effect of annulling the clause. As the law stood, the magistrate had a
  318
  right to send a witness to prison who, having evidence, refused to give it. Unless he was very much misinformed, a magistrate had no power to imprison a witness who said he had no evidence to give. Under this clause a witness could be sent to prison even though he had no evidence to give, and did not know anything about the transaction. The two clauses, taken together, would enable every man, woman, and child in a district to be sent to prison.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is discussing a question which is not before the Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORadmitted that he had, perhaps, been going a little further than the Amendment justified; but the Amendment, as he understood, proposed to reverse the whole procedure under this clause, and he was attempting to follow some observations of his hon. Friend, which appeared to have given a misleading impression. Anyone who knew anything about crime in Ireland knew that there were scarcely ever any witnesses of the crime. People did not commit murder or manslaughter or attack dwelling-houses in the presence of a large crowd of spectators; but under this clause, unless it was amended as proposed, Mr. Clifford Lloyd would be able to put scores of people into gaol because they would not commit perjury by professing that they had knowledge of a crime. He hoped the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsupposed this clause was another of the well-tried and well-proved weapons. It had been tried, but it remained to be seen whether it was well-proved or not. The same power existed under the Act of 1870, and the Executive in Ireland had, therefore, had some experience of it. The Chief Secretary was ready to give information with reference to the value of that power, and he had the records in Dublin Castle to refer to. Would the right hon. Gentleman state with regard to how many crimes between 1870 and 1875 the magistrates in Ireland exercised that power; and in how many cases the exercise of the power resulted in the crime being punished? If the right hon. Gentleman did not give that information, he should be entitled to assume that the similar clause in the Act of 1870 had failed. The contention of the

  319
  Government with regard to offences in Ireland was that the police knew the offenders, and that the only difficulty was that juries were afraid to convict and witnesses were afraid to speak the truth. The difficulty with regard to the juries had been disposed of by the creation of two tribunals without juries; and now it was proposed to get rid of the difficulty in regard to witnesses by this clause. Why, then, should not the Amendment be accepted? If the police knew the men who committed crime and charged them before a magistrate, then let the magistrate summon before him such witnesses as he might consider necessary. If the Government refused the Amendment he should be driven to the conclusion that the police had no knowledge of the criminals; and, therefore, the statement that they did know was not true.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 31: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
  DR. COMMINSproposed an Amendment which, he said, had been practically accepted. In putting this and other Amendments he had assumed that the clause would be passed, and therefore suggested Amendments which would prevent its doing mischief. The clause provided that if the magistrate believed some person was able to give evidence he might summon him. The magistrate's belief might be founded on no facts at all, and might arise from some whisper by a favourite or other person, and he wanted to provide something for testing that belief of the magistrate, and to check him from acting without any ground at all, and so prevent any case of gross injustice. If the supposed belief of the magistrate was left subject to no control, a magistrate who had lost his head, or who had friends whom he wished to accommodate, could issue summonses broadcast, and exercise a most despotic and inquisitorial power. The magistrate could not go so far as a magistrate on the Continent, or as could be done in this country in the days of the Star Chamber; but he could summon people on a mere belief that could not be tested, and then, if that person said he knew nothing about the matter the magistrate could say he knew better, and compel that person to give securities
  320
  or commit him to prison. In either case the magistrate could assume he knew something, and upon that he might exercise a cruel and despotic and irresponsible power. He simply wanted to prevent that. Whenever notorious crimes were committed, a coroner could send for any witness he might believe had information with regard to the crime, and put that person on his oath; and if the witness refused to be sworn he could be committed to prison; but the coroner had no power to say he knew the person had information, and, if he did not state it, to send him to prison. He did not object to magistrates having the same power as coroners; but if magistrates were invested with this irresponsible power, it would be very despotio and mischievous. In order to prevent this power being exercised mischievously and without due caution and discretion, and without some ground for its exercise, he proposed that when a magistrate had exercised this power he ought to be furnished with such evidence as would justify him afterwards, in the event of his action being inquired into. The only way of having such evidence was by sworn information in writing, showing some ground for believing that a person whom he was about to summon could give some material information. If the principle of this Amendment was conceded the manner in which it might be shaped was of little consequence. The Attorney General had referred to a similar provision, which practically embodied this principle in the Criminal Code, which placed restrictions upon the exercise of the power, and prevented that despotic exercise of which he was afraid. He feared very much that the powers given for a useful purpose might be perverted, and used for mischievous purposes; and, therefore, he urged that reasonable precautions should be adopted to prevent that.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 4, after the word "may," to insert the words "upon sworn information in writing being laid before him, showing reasonable grounds for believing that any person can give material evidence concerning any offence under this Act."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned

  321
  Member had touched on many matters which were not really affected by this clause. He supposed the hon. and learned Member did not want to carry the clause to its fullest extent with regard to minor evidence. The more important part of the Amendment would render this clause almost nugatory; because, under the Amendment, if the magistrate believed there was a person who could give information in relation to crime, although no person had been detected, the magistrate would not be allowed to obtain evidence from such person, unless a third person intervened and swore that he thought the other person could give evidence. What could be the use of asking for information from, somebody who said he thought that the other person had some knowledge? The Amendment would entirely nullify the clause. The hon. and learned Member assumed that a magistrate would be able to send to prison any person who said he had no evidence to give; but that was not so. A magistrate would only have the same power as if a prisoner was before him, and would have no power to commit a witness if the witness said he had no evidence to give. He would have the power to summon witnesses who he thought would be able to give information.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he could not agree with the Attorney General in his explanation. All that this Amendment desired was that before any person was summoned, there should be some ground for summoning him, and that he should not be summoned upon the arbitrary belief of the magistrate, and that the magistrate, before he summoned anyone, must have sworn information that somebody believed the person referred to had some information. Suppose there was a case of exclusive dealing; a trader who was jealous might tell the magistrate some story which the magistrate might believe, and upon which he might arbitrarily act. The object of the Amendment was to prevent that by providing that there should be sworn information before a person could be summoned. There was no more power of compulsion upon a witness under this section than under the ordinary law; but that did not do away with the objection to this clause, and he thought the Government ought to accept some restriction upon the magistrates.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Attorney General what would become of the principle of English law which provided that no person should be bound to give evidence which would incriminate himself?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was an Amendment later on dealing with that point.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the Attorney General's reasoning, for in saying that in ordinary cases a magistrate could exercise this power when a prisoner was before him, the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooked the fact that though nominally it was the magistrate who summoned a witness, in not one casein 1,000 did the initiative come from the magistrate. The initiative came from the policeman or the private prosecutor, who stated that the witness could give certain information, and applied for the summons, which was granted as a matter of course. But what was to be the course of action under this clause? Was the summons to originate with the police, or with the private informer, or with the magistrate? If with the police, or with some men who had received threatening notices, why did the Government refuse to require the person who used the magistrate as a tool to give some reasons for obtaining a summons, which might be followed by serious consequences? The Attorney General reasoned as if in ordinary cases the magistrate was the originator of the summons, whereas, as a fact, he had nothing to do with it. Another point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made was equally bad. He said this clause would give the magistrate no more power than he already possessed when a prisoner was charged before him; but if an informer would not disclose the grounds for his belief, the witness would be summoned on a presumption in the mind of the magistrate that he had some evidence to give. If then the witness refused to be sworn because he knew nothing about the matter, under this clause he could be imprisoned for doing what he had a perfect right to do. Another point was that in ordinary cases a magistrate could only commit a witness for a week if he refused to give evidence; but in this case the witness might be committed and kept in prison until the person suspected was caught, and that might not be for two or three

  323
  years. So this terrible power was not safeguarded in any way; and he submitted to the Committee that the arguments advanced had established the necessity for safeguarding the clause.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he did not think the Attorney General had met the real point of the argument urged by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon, that the magistrates in these cases ought not to take the initiative. Under the provisions of the Bill it was proposed to confer powers of summary jurisdiction on and invest those magistrates with the character of Judges. Was it right, then, that they, as proposed, should be thus made both prosecutors and Judges at the same time and in the same cases? The public or private prosecutor was the proper person to bring forward and ask for the examination of these witnesses. He protested against the introduction of a principle condemned by experiences of Criminal Jurisprudence in other countries. He desired, also, to remind the Committee that this clause was of a character far more inquisitorial and conferred more stringent and larger powers than those given by the Acts of 1870 and 1874, because in the Act of 1870, and in the subsequent Act of 1874, the magistrate was not allowed to go on a roving commission, bringing young women or anyone else into his private house, but he was bound to bring them to the Petty Sessions Court of the police district. It had been very pertinently asked by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), was there any advantage in retaining the clause at all, and was there anything in the Returns to justify it? As the Chief Secretary had not replied, he (Mr. Martin) would ask the permission of the Committee to now answer the question, and adduce from Hansard the evidence of a witness of the highest importance—namely, the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Last year, when in the House of Lords it was urged that the matter of this clause, and the powers conferred, were of great advantage and importance in aiding in the detection of crime, the Lord Lieutenant is reported to have said—
  "On a former occasion my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Marlborough) said that he attached the greatest importance to the clause in the Peace Preservation Act affecting the power of magistrates to summon witnesses; but I find that the provision in question was only put in force once in 1878, not at all in
  324
  1877, twice in 1876, twice in 1875, and four times in 1874."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 49.]
  Now, having this information before them, he asked why should the Government desire to retain this most objectionable clause, which the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland declared was of no practical advantage? If, however, it was determined to thus give, without necessity, powers so liable to abuse, and which, in their exercise, might cause no slight hardship, then the least that could be asked on behalf of the people of Ireland was that this most inquisitorial clause, if exercised, should be safeguarded in every possible way. It was asking a very reasonable safeguard, that they should not leave the magistrate to rove at large through the country, at his own pleasure, but that a public prosecutor, or some private person acquainted with the facts, should be the person to set the law in force. This person should, in asking that the power should be exercised, state some reasonable grounds to the magistrate, whether on oath or in writing he did not care. If the Government objected to the statement on oath, perhaps his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon would consent to having the statement in writing. In respect to the Alien Clause, it was provided that some ground should be stated. And should it be put in the power of any Irish magistrate to summon anyone at his pleasure, without any justification whatever, or without entertaining reasonable belief that the person summoned was able to give evidence; to summon persons, one after another, to his private house, and interrogate them just as he pleased, without any such safeguard as was contained in the Amendment? He trusted the Committee would either have some statement from Her Majesty's Government accepting the Amendment, or that it would be pressed to a division.
  MR. SEXTONasked what had the Government to say after the extraordinary evidence put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny? The Attorney General told the Committee that a similar clause existed in the Act of 1870, and either he or some other Member of the Government declaimed on the advantage to be derived from that clause; and now it appeared from the evidence of Lord Spencer, quoted by his hon. and learned Friend, that it

  325
  was exercised four times in oneyear—the highest number of times—and twice only in each of the two successive years, once in another year, and in one year not at all. After that evidence, would the Government maintain that the clause was a valuable one in the former Act? It fell into complete neglect, as appeared from the evidence of their own Lord Lieutenant. The Attorney General said if a magistrate knew of a person likely to give evidence and had not the power to summon him, that it would lead to a failure of justice; but the reply to that was brief and simple. The magistrate knew nothing of any person likely to give evidence except from what some complainant or policeman told him; and it would be just as easy to have the statement on a sworn information as to have it in conversation, and the result would be that such a precaution would induce a sense of the danger of perjury, and would save the magistrate from the danger of acting upon merely irresponsible gossip.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 112: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
  MR. MARUMsaid, his Amendment came next in order; but, perhaps, it was better that he should beg leave to move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANasked, did the hon. Member make that Motion?
  MR. MARUMsaid, he did.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Marum.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, no wonder the Chairman did not quite understand the Motion was made, for the hon. Member himself seemed rather reluctant to move it. It was to be hoped it would not be pressed. The Committee had made fair progress, and would, he hoped, make some further progress, with the clause. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that the Committee would not sit on the following day, and there was every reason for continuing a little longer.
  MR. MARUMasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,
  MR. MARUMwished to move the insertion of the words "in petty sessions as hereinafter provided." His object in moving this Amendment was that in the clause of the Act of which this was the transcript—the "Protection Act"—these omitted words were supplied, for that Act provided that in a proclaimed district a Justice of the Peace should have power to summon witnesses to the place where the Petty Sessions of the district were held, and in which district the offence had been committed. So the words of his Amendment would require the magistrate to summon to the Petty Sessions Court, and not to his place of residence, which had been complained of. In Ireland the magistrate had jurisdiction to summon anywhere in the county, and even in the adjoining county, and, though he would usually use Petty Sessions, still it was well to have it defined, and not left to the magistrate's discretion, which might be inconveniently exercised.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, after the word "him," to insert the words "in petty sessions as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to accept these words; but he thought they would not come in this place.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he had taken the words from the Act of 1870, which ran thus—
  "Shall have power and authority to summon to the police office or place for petty sessions in the district where the said felony or misdemeanour is committed."
  Of course, the words "felony or misdemeanour" must be altered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would agree to the insertion of the words in the fourth line—
  "At the police office or place where the petty sessions of the district in which the said offence is committed are usually held."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would rather have the words "police office" out, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had no objection. He did not agree with the summoning to police-barracks at all; and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had conceded so far, he might agree to

  327
  leave the words without the "police office," so as to read "at the place where petty sessions are held."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, this did not mean the Constabulary-barracks; it meant the police-office in the town.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that was satisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 4, after "him," to insert "at the police office or place where the petty sessions of the district in which the said offence is committed are usually held."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the Amendment of which he had given Notice was consequential on a previous one, and, therefore, he would not move it.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he moved to omit certain words, and would state his object. As the clause now read, it made the magistrate the Executive officer, and drew no distinction—a distinction which he was glad had been recognized in a statement by the Solicitor General for Ireland—between the Executive and the Judicial functions of the magistrate. These functions, it had been said, the Government would endeavour to separate as much as possible, and this object he wished to secure by providing that the magistrate might—
  "If he think fit, make an order that such person may be then examined on oath in his presence by and on behalf of the Crown."
  It appeared to be a matter of form; but if the magistrate was to get witnesses and get information, and then came forward to examine them, it placed the magistrate in an Executive, not a Judicial position. There was, in fact, too much of this kind of thing in Ireland, and Resident Magistrates were required to act as Executive officers, many inconsistencies arising from this confusion of functions. The observations of the Solicitor General for Ireland, speaking on behalf of the Government, conveyed the idea that the functions of the magistrates, Executive and Judicial, would be separated as much as possible, and to that object his Amendment was directed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 7, after the word "may," to leave out to "concerning," and insert "if he
  328
  think fit, make an order that such person maybe then examined on oath in his presence by and on behalf of the Crown."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that examining on behalf of the Crown implied examining for the prosecution as against an accused person.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he would not press the Amendment, but would leave the whole responsibility upon the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. COMMINS DR. COMMINS moved to insert, in place of the word "examine," the words "take the deposition of." He thought the distinction between the two terms was very obvious, and he wanted to prevent as much as possible an inquisitorial inquiry, and so to place a check upon the unfair exercise of this power by the magistrates. There might be an examination by a magistrate, in the presence of three or four policemen, without the slightest record of what took place, and that process might be repeated day by day. Attempts might be made to entrap a witness, and other unfair practices might be resorted to, which he thought ought to be prevented. The Amendment implied that the results of the examinations should be in writing.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 7, to leave out the word "examine," and insert the words "take the deposition of."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That the word" examine "stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he agreed in substance with the argument that there should be some record of examinations. He would suggest that these words should be added to the words in the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, after the word "upon," to insert "within three months from the date of such recognizance."—(Sir. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. COMMINS DR. COMMINS moved an Amendment with the view of empowering a Coroner to make an examination under this Bill as he would under ordinary circumstances. The power of the magistrates at Petty Sessions was, he said, some what greater than that of the Coroner; but he submitted that the magistrate and the Coroner should have the some power.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 11, to leave out the word "justice," and insert the word "coroner."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'justice' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not quite see the distinction between the power of a Coroner and the power of a Justice, but he agreed to the substance of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. MARUM Mr. MARUM moved to insert, after the word "section," the words—
  "Provided, That any person so summoned shall be entitled to have present at any such examination or other proceeding counsel or attorney on his or her behalf."
  In the Probate Court there was a special provision for administering interrogatories, and for allowing counsel to attend when witnesses were subjected to such interrogatories. The same power was given under the Peace Preservation Act. In the "Bravo" case, when Dr. Gully was examined by Serjeant Parry, counsel were present; so that it was according to the practice of English law that witnesses should have the assistance of professional advisers if they chose. He presumed that the Government did not mean that a man was not to have a fair trial, and therefore he proposed this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 15, after the word "section," to insert the words "Provided, That any person so summoned shall be entitled to have present at any such examination or other proceeding counsel or attorney on his or her behalf.—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HEALYurged that this Proviso was especially necessary, because there was nothing in the Bill to the same
  330
  effect. It might be said the Amendment was needless, because if there was a prisoner, the person examined would have the benefit of cross-examination; but, as the clause stood, a man might be arrested for an offence in one town, and the Justice might have power to summons witnesses in another town upon the charge. If a man in London was arrested, some man in Newcastle might be summoned as a witness, and there was nothing to require his being brought to London where the prisoner was charged. This Proviso was especially necessary, in order that if witnesses were to be brought to a place where the accused person was charged they should have the benefit of counsel.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not quite follow the hon. Member, and pointed out that words had been inserted which would prevent the difficulty suggested.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was to be understood that the Government were about to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to the effect that nothing should oblige a witness to incriminate himself? If that were so, why should not a witness have the assistance of an adviser? It might be that a witness was not to be cross-examined by his own counsel; but that was not the point of the Amendment. He wished to know whether there was anything in the Bill which provided that if a person was in custody in one town, witnesses might be examined in another part of the country, and not brought to the place where the prisoner was charged? Such a procedure would lead to technical difficulties, and he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if there was an accused person, the witnesses would be taken to where he was, and no evidence could be given in the prisoner's absence.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the words in the clause were "although no person may be charged."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)remarked, that that might be so; but no evidence would stand unless it was taken in the presence of the accused person. If such evidence was taken in the absence of the prisoner, the witness would have to be again examined in the presence of the prisoner,

  331
  and there would be no danger of the difficulty which the hon. Member pointed to. Where a witness was examined, he ought to have counsel, in order that he should not incriminate himself. He would have that right under this Bill, and would not be bound to state anything that would incriminate himself, and that principle would apply equally in cases under this Act as in cases in an ordinary Court.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that if a person so examined in a probate case was entitled to have counsel, à fortiori, a person examined with regard to an offence which might afterwards be charged against him was entitled to have the assistance of counsel. The Attorney General had that evening shown a reasonable disposition to meet the views of hon. Members, and he thought if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give a few moments' consideration to this proposal he would regard it in a somewhat different light. As he understood the Amendment, it did not seem to mean that the witness should be compelled to employ counsel, but that he should have the right to employ counsel if he chose. Did the Attorney General seriously contend that a man brought before a magistrate upon an investigation under this Act, in which he might incriminate himself unintentionally, should be deprived of the right of counsel? That was all that was asked by this Amendment. He would ask the Attorney General to consider for a moment the manner in which this clause would practically be worked. An offence took place in a district; the magistrate was anxious to fix it upon some person whom he suspected; what would be the primary action of the magistrate in such a case? It would be the same as that of the French magistrates. The very first person, in many cases, whom he would summon and examine would be the first person suspected of being a principal in the offence. The witness might not be directly charged; but the object would be to bring up as the first witness the man who was supposed to have committed the offence, and that person was to be forbidden, under this Act, to have the right of engaging counsel to advise him. The Attorney General could scarcely propose a provision so monstrous and unconstitutional and unparalleled in the Jurisdiction of any country. He might
  332
  as well propose that such an examination should take place in the dark cell. He hoped the Attorney General would state that he had not completely made up his mind, and would reconsider this question.
  MR. MARUMsaid, all that the Amendment proposed was that where a witness was examined, he should be advised as to questions which he need not answer if they would incriminate him, or cause him civil injury. It was right that such a person should know exactly the ground upon which he stood. The principle of Constitutional Law was that every man should get a fair trial, and, when exceptional powers were being given, there ought to be a provision to insure this principle being carried out. It was true that anything said in the absence of the accused was not evidence against him; but such evidence was always read over in the presence of the accused. The effect of such a proceeding might go very far to shake the testimony of a witness, and it was only right that this provision should be agreed to.
  MR. O'KELLYinquired whether a man summoned as a witness under this clause would be warned before he was examined that there was a probability of his being charged with the crime? As had been explained by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), the probability was that the first man summoned would be the man whom the Law Advisers intended to put on his trial. If that man was not warned, would it be possible to use evidence extracted from him in ignorance of the fact that he was practically charged with the crime? The procedure established by this clause was well known in France, and it was a procedure which some of the most distinguished lawyers in France were now endeavouring to have repealed, as they found that the magistrates, instead of playing the part of Judge only, in every instance played the part really of Public Prosecutor, and so the people brought to trial had not the privilege they were entitled to—namely, a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Having the experience of the French Courts before them, the Committee ought to be very careful how they introduced a procedure which, after a very extended trial in France, had not given anything like satisfaction to men of liberal minds

  333
  in that country. In Ireland this law would be put into practice under conditions much more unfavourable than those in France, because in all these trials in Ireland there would enter an element of political and social hostility that would render the prisoner's chance of a fair trial much less than in the ordinary criminal trials in France. The experience of French lawyers was that even in criminal trials where there was no political question involved, the desire of the magistrates was to secure a conviction of those brought before them, and there was a tendency to stretch that power to the utmost. That power was, in the opinion of the French lawyers, used very unfairly against the prisoners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the proposed words were not sufficient, because all they provided was that any person should be entitled to have the presence of counsel. The words, of course, meant that a legal person should be present; but if it was intended that counsel should appear for an accused person, that was contrary to anything he knew of. The examiner might interfere, and that was a system which would not be tolerated in England. He was anxious to meet the hon. Gentleman, and his own idea was to go further than the hon. Gentleman suggested, and to propose to insert words providing that evidence given by a person under compulsion should not be used against him if he were accused.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, would the Attorney General, in addition, favourably consider the desirability of allowing counsel to be present as a friend of the person summoned to give evidence, so that the person under examination might confer with his counsel from time to time as to whether such and such a question might tend to incriminate himself in any way if answered? That, he thought, would answer all purposes. Of course, that would not of necessity contain the right of the counsel to examine the witness himself, but he would be present somewhat in the position of a legal adviser of a person before a court martial; he would not be called upon to say anything from his own mouth, but he would advise privately with the person under examination as to what questions he should answer.
  MR. MARUMsaid, he did not think that the Attorney General had really followed what had been said. He said that the person summoned should be entitled to have someone else present, and by that he meant not that the witness should appear by counsel, for then he might personally not appear at all, but, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said, some professional man should be present to advise the witness as to his legal position. The proposition made was a reasonable one—that nothing should be extracted from the evidence and used in a way detrimental to him who gave it.
  MR. HEALYreminded the Committee that, when a similar pledge was given the other night—given by the Prime Minister—it was practically thrown overboard the next night by the Home Secretary. No doubt, the Attorney General was as bonâ fide in his intention now as the Prime Minister was in his. The Attorney General said that the evidence given by any witness should not be used against any such witness. He drew attention to that fact in case the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary should, as he did a few nights before, throw over his Colleague.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the pledge he had given amounted to this. He thought it right that the principle of the Amendment should be carried into effect; and unless something unforeseen did occur, something pointed out that did not appear at the present moment, he would use all his influence with his Colleagues in the Government to get the words inserted.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was an important question, and the Attorney General had pointed out very plainly a limitation in the Amendment, that counsel should be present, not that he should examine. He supposed that meant that counsel would not be allowed to prevent a witness from answering a question tending to incriminate himself. Would the Attorney General, then, accept the Amendment as it stood, that a counsel or solicitor should have the right to be present without any locus standi? The Attorney General gave a pledge that words should be put in prohibiting the use of the evidence of a witness against that witness. It was a pledge easier to give than to carry out; but, apart from

  335
  that, what objection could the Attorney General have to allow a counsel or solicitor to be present without the right of examination? What he and his hon. Friends wanted was to prevent this being a Star Chamber investigation; that a magistrate should not drag people into Court, and subject them to an examination of a private nature in their cells, such as was followed under French Jurisprudence. They wanted the examination to be open and public. And he could not see, if the Government meant to act openly, why they should object to this precaution that was asked, that the examination should be open and fair; and a guarantee for this was the presence of some friend of the witness. Why the Government should not consent to this he could not make out, unless they wished to make it a Star Chamber proceeding altogether.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that really the Government had gone beyond this Amendment. The ground on which his hon. Friend opposite moved his Amendment was, as he said, because of the peril in which a person might be placed in giving evidence that would tend to incriminate himself, and because he might be in a position to have that evidence afterwards used against him. On that ground the hon. Member asked that a counsel should be present. Now, the Government proposed to insert words to render the evil suggested impossible, for nothing the person under examination said was to be used against him. So the Government rendered the Amendment unnecessary by providing absolutely against all danger, for even if the witness did give criminating evidence it could never be used against him. Had they not, therefore, made a concession which really and substantially met the object of the Amendment?
  MR. MARUMadmitted that; but if the words inserted provided that nothing he gave in evidence should be used against him, that might lead to a corresponding freedom on the part of the witness, and he would not be so guarded in his answers, and give unfair evidence.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the evidence could not be used against any accused person; it would only be used as matter of information.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to know that it was a practice instituted by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and others of that stamp, to get men into their private rooms and there to threaten and bully them, calling them cut-throats, assassins, murderers, in his private room. Such had been Mr. Clifford Lloyd's proceedings when he swept through certain districts in Limerick, abusing, blackguarding, bullying as he liked. It was this kind of thing the Amendment would prevent.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to know whether this evidence thus obtained would be all used in open Court, or whether any private proceedings would be taken thereon? This information would be obtained in secret, and he wished to know whether all the evidence on which a man was to be tried would be produced openly in Court, no secret information being used to obtain his conviction?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought they really must insist on this as a necessary safeguard. What he wanted was a definite answer. Were these proceedings to be public or private, were they to take place in open Court, or were they to be of a Star Chamber character? To this question he wanted a plain "Yea" or "Nay." The Government had accepted the Amendment that the process should take place in the Police Court or Petty Sessions Court But was it to be secret, and was it only to convict that the magistrate should appear in open Court, and while under this extraordinary law he was only conducting an examination, was he to exclude all but himself and the witness from the building? That he had ventured to call a Star Chamber process; and, at the risk of putting the Committee to some trouble, he and his Friends were bound to fight it out until they got a satisfactory answer. Now, how did the Amendment affect this? For the Government it was said—"We are engaged in the investigation of crime, and endeavouring to find clues to the perpetrator of some horrid offence, and it is unreasonable to ask us to open the door of the Court to everybody who may act as a spy on our proceedings and to foil our aim." The reasonableness of this objection he would admit; and the reason why the Amendment was pressed was that, as it was consistently proposed

  337
  to exclude the general public, then there were grounds for demanding that there should be some person present, a friend of the witness, so that something like fair play should be given him, and that it should not be an examination exactly the same as that process of examination of the accused in his cell, only the Justice of the Peace present, which took place under the French system. That was a "Bastille" proceeding, against which they were bound to protest; and while the Government refused a satisfactory answer, he could not agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment or the conclusion of the discussion of the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry to hear the hon. Member express a determination to "fight it out." That was the last word he wished to hear from him. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment appeared willing to withdraw it after the statements made, which he hoped had been satisfactory. The hon. Member seemed to think this was a parallel case to an accused person in his cell; but nothing of the kind had been proposed, nothing of the kind had been acted on before, or would be. The person might be interrogated; that was agreed; and the hon. Member would be as desirous as himself to see a guilty person arrested, but he (the Attorney General) objected to this being called convicting evidence. There seemed to be an impression that the evidence would be collected against either the person present or somebody else; but that was not so; the witness must give his evidence in open Court to convict anybody, and this would not be evidence against an accused, as his hon. and learned Friend had said. It was thought that the witness should have a person present to prevent him saying anything to criminate himself; and there he met the proposal by offering instead of that safeguard, an immunity by saying he should have none of the evidence used against him, or any criminal charge preferred against him on the evidence arising from that examination. Of what use would it be, then, to have the proposed safeguard, when there was the assurance that anything he might say would not be used against him? But, as he had said, he had no objection to the principle sought to be laid down, but he would like to consider it carefully with the
  338
  Home Secretary, but he could not give a promise to the full extent. If consideration of the matter would be of any use, he would not assume a position of hostility to the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, one great object in having a legal friend present when the examination was being conducted was to insure that it should be conducted in proper legal fashion. It was most desirable that a magistrate should be encouraged to do that; but if he were permitted to hold the examination in private, without the cheek that would be obtained by the presence of a friend of the witness of legal training, this kind of examination might very likely degenerate into license, and there would be complaints of the conduct of magistrates during examinations, such as there had been of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd while he was holding examinations in the counties of Limerick and Clare. He had heard a great many complaints of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and he would astonish the Committee if he repeated the language used by Mr. Lloyd to witnesses and persons brought before him. He heard from one man brought before him that the language was such that he felt that for his own safety it was wiser to say nothing at all, making no reply whatever, otherwise he felt that he ran the risk of being sent to prison for contempt of Court, though he was asked a great many questions by Mr. Clifford Lloyd as to his guilt or innocence. If the power of examining an accused person had been used in this way—
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No; not an accused person, a witness.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was about to add if used against an accused person in that fashion, was it not quite as likely that the examination would be conducted in the same way in the private examination of a witness? Here was an example of how it might act. A witness was bullied, confused, intimidated, frightened at one of these examinations into giving evidence that did not represent the facts—evidence that was unfair; this being taken down on his deposition, would be used, not as evidence against the person making it, but it would be information upon which some person might be made amenable. This person made amenable being brought before the magistrate after-

  339
  wards, the witness giving in cross-examination a different account, would be liable to a prosecution for perjury inconsequence of the information he communicated without any legal friend being present. He would be put on oath, and would make himself liable to a charge of perjury, when in truth he had intended nothing of the kind, but had been betrayed into mis-statements by the overbearing conduct of the magistrate. It was a case extremely likely to happen, and it showed the risks that witnesses might run in these preliminary examinations. He might also be induced to give evidence that might lead up to some other evidence against himself—evidence that, though not directly against himself, might give the police a clue to evidence from some other person. In that way evidence might be used to the danger of the witness under examination. These were examples on which they were entitled to some declaration from the Attorney General. It was a most odious form of examination, adapted from the French; and, however safeguarded by the Amendment, the Attorney General had promised to consider as to none of the evidence being used against the witness himself, yet, depend upon it, the ingenuity of magistrates, unless there was this safeguard of the presence of a legal friend of the witness, would render it possible to extract admissions that would be used against him.
  MR. HEALYbegged to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed now, when the Committee had arrived at a point when, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, the clause might soon be disposed of. An understanding was nearly approached, and they might be allowed to finish the clause.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not object to that so long as it was discussion; but not when hon. Gentlemen opposite and behind the Government kept up a succession of small noises to show their contempt for the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The least they
  340
  could ask, if they continued to remain, was that they should be heard patiently. In withdrawing his Motion, he would say, that as to there being no complaint of the working of such a provision under the Act of 1870, that there was certainly a case in one of the Midland Counties where a person was put on his trial, and evidence used against him which he had given himself. For his own part, he did not think that it was a great concession made by the Attorney General. He regarded it in this way—evidence would be given by the witness, and, in substance, that evidence might not be used against him so far as the deposition went; but there would be a hundred clues supplied by which the police would lead him into a trap. That might, or might not, be desirable; but if it was desirable for Ireland, why was it not equally desirable for England? If English Institutions were going to be Frenchified by the clôture, so the system might be carried out in the Criminal Law. The Alien Clause had been introduced into England; let the same be done with this clause—
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, when he had an opportunity of bringing forward the Amendment of the Criminal Code, he would propose it.
  MR. HEALYsaid, this was a desirable opportunity. The Government availed themselves of an Amendment by an hon. Member from Wales (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) to introduce the Alien Clause; let them do it now. Every year they heard of the Criminal Code Bill; but it was well known that when a House full of lawyers fell to talking about it, it would never get through. Here was an opportunity now to apply this principle to England. His objection to the proposal principally was this—that a man would be brought into Court among a number of policemen, Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, and magistrates; he would be like Daniel in the lions' den, only that he would not come out scatheless; all would be barking and biting at him. What would happen? Every policeman would examine him, every Inspector would examine him, every magistrate would examine him; the only person who would not have a turn at examining would be the witness himself. The Attorney General for Ireland, were he present, might be able to

  341
  corroborate him when he said it was a pitiless spectacle to go to Petty Sessions and see the police badgering an unfortunate witness, and to see the airs the Sub-Inspectors gave themselves. Unless the Government gave a concession Irish Members were bound to go on with their opposition. It was of vital importance to break the domineering spirit of the Irish police. So long as these did their business of thief-catching, there was no objection to them; but so long as they had the power under this clause they would use it to put up whole battalions of witnesses, one after the other; they would call up a whole village, and every policeman would think he had a right to examine every man, woman, or child, or all his or her actions from the day since they first had the use of reason to the moment of examination. That was the proposal of the Attorney General, and there was not a single protection for the witness. If he refused to give information he would be committed from week to week. If he refused to answer where he was on such a night, saying that it might criminate him, then he would find himself sent to the Criminal Court, and still have the police for company. It was a matter of so much importance that it must be fought out, and they would remain there until the point was settled; and, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman might concede it if any progress was to be made at all.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MARUMconfessed that the suggestion of the Attorney General, that it should be provided that no evidence should criminate the witness, had much force in it; but had he any objection to allowing some friend of the witness to be present? It was only fair that such should be allowed; perhaps a non-professional man. The Attorney General might consider whether he could not make this concession.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, for himself he should prefer that the friend should be a professional man. But he would consider that. As he said before, he would confer with those who had charge of the Bill; he had promised to do that; but he could not give a pledge as he did in regard to the other proposition, that no evidence should criminate a witness;
  342
  but as to having a friend present, there would be more utility in making that a professional man; he would consider it, but he could not now consent to the Amendment.
  MR. GRAYrecognized the conciliatory spirit of the Attorney General; but he thought he would see that it was a little unreasonable to expect that Irish Members would let the clause pass until this matter, which they deemed of vital importance, was settled. The hon. and learned Gentleman recognized that there was something in the point urged that a professional man should be allowed to be present; but what did he suggest pending the consideration of the point? He asked the Committee to pass the clause. Now, in the event of the Home Secretary, who did not display the same spirit which had been displayed by the Attorney General, in the event of his saying he considered there was nothing in the point urged, and that law and order in Ireland required that these examinations should be in secret; and that these depositions should be taken in secret, then in what position would those who supported this Amendment be? He (Mr. Gray) did not care for the introduction of the suggestion to fight this matter out, for they had been met in such a way that they should endeavour to persuade the hon. and learned Gentleman to give them some consideration rather than to endeavour to coerce him. But, then, he should leave the Irish Members liberty of action in the matter. The Attorney General had not answered the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which appeared irresistible. The Attorney General seemed to think a witness was entitled to protection; and he said the depositions were not to be used against the witness himself but the hon. Member for the City of Cork had put a case which the Attorney General had not answered or met in any way. Remember, most of these witnesses would be poor and ignorant peasants, some with a deficient knowledge of the English language, and these men would be subjected to a searching examination, alone, before a magistrate, of whom, probably, they stood in the greatest terror, and it could be easily imagined, that under such circumstances, admissions would be made; it was at least conceivable that under such circumstances depositions would

  343
  represent an exaggerated account of the matter under consideration, and might be elicited from the witness and put down as his statement. Now, in the event of his wavering from that deposition in open Court or contradicting himself, as would be quite possible, would the witness be liable for a prosecution for perjury? If he was so liable, was it not essential he should have a friend there to see that the examination was conducted in a fair judicial manner? This was not bringing forward an imaginary case; there had often been cases of men even of a higher social status being bullied by Resident Magistrates, and induced to swear to anything at all under such pressure. As this would go on in secret, was there to be any defence for the witness against a subsequent prosecution for perjury; because, under pressure of the mental torture to which he might be subjected, he might say something which, in open Court, he might not adhere to, knowing then, perhaps, that the life of a fellow-countryman was involved. The Attorney General did not see his way to make the concession asked for; but it was absolutely essential for the protection of the witness, and it was not too much to ask that the progress of the clause should be suspended pending the consideration the hon. and learned Gentleman had promised to give to the matter. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, he was sure, would give an assurance that there should be no undue discussion of the point at the next meeting; they would merely reserve their right in the event of the decision of the Home Secretary, with regard to which he felt some apprehension, being adverse.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL), in reference to what had been said, that there had not been an endeavour to meet the arguments used, said, there had not been that endeavour, because, as had been stated, it was the intention of the Government to consider the proposal favourably. It was desirable not to assume a hostile attitude when it had been said the matter would be taken into consideration, with the view of meeting the wishes expressed as far as possible.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he only said if the Government asked to have the clause passed, they were bound to meet the
  344
  Amendment. He did not say they should argue against their own view.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)continued. It must be left to Government consideration as to the mode in which it should be allowed, and he submitted to hon. Members that they would be quite as likely to obtain a favourable consideration of their views if they left it to Report, as if Progress were now reported. Leaving the matter now would be to take it up again on Monday just where it was, for, as hon. Members might suppose, Members of the Government had a good many matters to attend to, and it was not possible to act immediately with an Amendment prepared.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked, that the Committee would not sit on Monday.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)continued. The effect of leaving the matter open now would be to throw away the whole benefit of the discussion there had been in sitting to that late hour. The Government, it would be admitted, had endeavoured to give full weight to the arguments used, and had made a concession, so far as they felt it possible, and there would be a full opportunity of fighting it out, as had been said, on Report. He would not suppose that hon. Members were going to obstruct now to force a concession, after the fair way in which they had been met. He hoped that as the Government had endeavoured to deal fairly, so hon. Members would do the same, and not try to force a concession at the bayonet's point. The promise had been given to do all that could be done, so that the witness should be protected, and that there should be no cause of complaint.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, they wished to get at the minds of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had the matter in charge. He was perfectly willing to leave the matter on the same footing as the other concession as to which a promise was previously given. If the Attorney General was willing to say he would do his best to obtain the concession on Report, he would be perfectly ready to leave it so, trusting in the hope and belief that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be successful in his exertions. But it should be pointed out that the first concession was not so great as it appeared to be, for it only put the witness

  345
  examined in the same position should he become accused as any other person already would be who might be accused in consequence of his information. In no case would his evidence be used against any other person who might be accused in consequence. He would have to give it in open Court. So the concession given by the Attorney General in reality only put the witness in the same position that an accused person would be in who might be accused in consequence of the information given. It was practically a question of information, not of evidence. The magistrate would summon this person before him to obtain information on some event, not to collect evidence, so that the concession of the Attorney General in the direction of protecting the witness or person making the deposition from any criminal prosecution in consequence of his statement, did not amount to so much. They wished to get information with regard to crime, and whether they obtained it in such a way as to convict the person giving it, after a lapse of time, or some other person, mattered very little; but what was wanted was to have the person so examined with someone with him, so that the examination should be conducted in proper legal fashion, and that the witness should not be bullied or entrapped into giving information that might lead to his own conviction afterwards.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the concession was rather more substantial than the hon. Member supposed. Witnesses before a Coroner might have their evidence used against them at any time, and evidence given before a magistrate might be used against a witness, and if he persisted in falsehood, that might be used against him. So here, in the clause, there would be exceptional protection on the consideration that it was not open evidence. That concession, he said; he thought could be obtained, for it was not unfair to say that the information given should not be used against the person giving it. That, he felt, would be a sufficient safeguard, but now hon. Members were asking him to make step by step further concessions, to which he could say no more than he had said. He had assented to the principle, which he might safely say he could urge on the acceptance of the Home Secretary, and had no doubt would obtain like concession. But com-
  346
  ing to this further concession, he had to communicate with Ireland, and to obtain the views of the Attorney General for Ireland, who would be absent for another two or three days on official business. Under the circumstances, it would be seen that it was wiser to defer the matter until Report. He could not give such a definite kind of pledge as he gave on the former matter; but he was willing to consider it, and if it was found that it could be done without interfering with the due obtaining of the information sought for, he would do his best, and would not oppose the views of hon. Members. If they would not accept this, he could go no further, and he did not wish to meet the Amendment in a hostile spirit.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not wish to prolong the discussion, but merely to put a question, which was briefly this. Whether a person—he did not refer to witnesses at all, but an accused person who might subsequently be put upon his trial—would be tried before a magistrate who had heard the secret evidence against him, such evidence not being adduced in open trial; would the man be put on trial before a magistrate whose mind might be prejudiced against him by secret evidence which the accused had no opportunity of rebutting in open Court?
  MR. HEALYsaid, as they were dealing with such a courteous Gentleman, it would be well to show that they appreciated the spirit which animated him; but it was a bad principle to go upon to suppose that the arguments used in favour of an Amendment could be put with the same force by the Gentleman in charge of the Bill to a third person now absent, as if he were in the House. The temper and characteristics of the Home Secretary were known; he did not care so long as he obtained his Bill; and he might say he would not be bound by this or that, and nothing the Attorney General could say could remove the profound distrust Irish Members had for the Home Secretary. As to the argument that to break off now would necessitate the rearguing of the matter before a new audience, why, the audience in the House did not amount to anything—he only looked to influence the Government. If Members could be moved by cranks in and out of the Lobbies, they would be as much use. What the Irish Members

  347
  wanted to get at was the Government in power. On the Government they tried to press their views, careless of who else was in the House. Now, in Sub-section 3 of the 1st clause of the Bill it was provided that—
  "The evidence taken on a trial before a Special Commission Court shall be taken down by a shorthand writer who shall be sworn to take the same accurately to the best of his ability."
  Now, it would be a certain check on the magistrate if, in these examinations, he found that every abusive word was being taken down by a shorthand-writer, and might be produced afterwards. The shorthand-writer might be sworn to secrecy. If the Government would not concede that, would they give a guarantee that no questions should be put to the witness except by the magistrate who took the deposition, and that all Police Inspectors who brow-beated witnesses should be moved from the Court? If the examination was to be carried on au secret, then there should be a security that it was carried on by the magistrate only. But if the evidence was wanted, so much the more important to have a shorthand-writer.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, as regarded the shorthand-writer, if a magistrate could only take evidence in regard to a crime with a shorthand-writer present, time would often be lost, and the purpose of the clause frustrated.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that there were policemen trained as shorthand-writers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he heard that they were not to be trusted as shorthand-writers. It would also be impossible to say that only one person should be present. He could not say that more than one magistrate should not be present. As to the question of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan), the Solicitor General would afford the information if he were asked later on.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would be better to allow the matter to wait for Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that the Government had accepted the principle of his Amendment, that magistrates who exercised powers under this section should not afterwards act judicially in regard to the offence which was the subject
  348
  of examination; but he regretted that the Government had left it to a private Member to propose.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he was not aware that the statement went quite so far as the Amendment the hon. Member had given Notice of. It was certainly stated that it was the intention of the Government to have steps taken to prevent magistrates acting in two capacities, and there was not the slightest intention to recede from that assurance. At the present moment the Government were making arrangements to carry out that undertaking; but as to putting it in the Bill, that was a matter for consideration, and the Government had not come to a conclusion whether it was absolutely necessary to put it in the Bill, or whether a sufficient guarantee could be given otherwise. But he would undertake that if it was found necessary in order that the assurance might be carried out, then it should be put in the Bill on Report, if necessary.
  MR. HEALYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat the last sentence.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)repeated, if it became necessary in order to bind the Government that the magistrates acting in taking evidence should not act judicially, it would be put it on the Report stage, if it was found necessary to do so.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, then the Government accepted the Amendment in principle.
  MR. HEALYsaid, there was nothing much in that. He acted on the principle that they were dealing with enemies. The Government seemed to suppose it might not be found necessary, and that they might make any statement of that kind—"If they find it necessary." Necessary in the minds of whom? In the minds of Gentlemen who did all they could to harass the people of Ireland! In the minds of those who put his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork and others of his friends in gaol, and issued warrants to serve himself and many others in the same way! It was absurd. Were they children who knew not with whom they had to deal? With people who held the country in spite of his own countrymen, it stood to reason they must have a definite pledge, on which basis

  349
  only could they deal. Of course, the promise to an English Member could be accepted; it was dealing with friends; but Irish Members knew that they were dealing with those who would string them up in Palace Yard if they could do it. That was the position, and being so, and the pledge not having been denied, let it be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. GRAYreminded his hon. Friend that the words were—"if it was found necessary for the purpose of binding the Government;" therefore it was a distinct announcement that they were to be bound. Of course, the assurance of a Member of the Government was merely a matter of opinion; but he thought they might accept the statement that the Government would bind themselves to the principle of the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not see any objection to the proposed Amendment; but if it was afterwards found that the expression used by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could not be moved, other words could be introduced upon Report. Irish Members were charged with obstructing Business; but he thought the really guilty parties were the Government, who raised objections to inserting in the Bill the pledges they made.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood the Solicitor General for Ireland to say that if he found the Government by law was not bound in the sense of this Amendment, words to bind them would be introduced into the Act. He supposed that at a later stage words would be inserted by the Government, or, if not, that they would state by what they were bound.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 24: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
  MR. PARNELLasked the Attorney General whether there would be any chance of having the Bill re-committed, in order to insert the new clause suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not hold out any hope that that course could be taken.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That course can only be adopted by the House; but after the Bill has been considered in Committee it cannot be done.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock till Monday next.