COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 27 May 1886 vol 306 cc213-95

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. John Morley.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

, in rising to move the following Amendment, which stood in his name upon the Notice Paper:— That, in the opinion of this House, no measure dealing with the disarmament of Orange districts will be satisfactory or impartially administered which requires to be put in force by a proclamation of the Irish Privy Council, composed almost entirely of members of or sympathisers with the Orange organisation, said, he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would have been able, at the beginning of the debate, to make some statement which would, perhaps, obviate the necessity of him (Mr. Healy) moving the Amendment. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform them exactly by what means he proposed to put the Bill into operation? He (Mr. Healy) altogether objected to such an Act being put in force by the Privy Council in Ireland, for many of them—indeed, by far the most—were very strong politicians indeed. He had to remind the House that the Bill was stated to be one for the purpose of disarming Orangemen in the North of Ireland and elsewhere, who were in the habit of going to meetings with arms in their hands. The House would remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) stated that, on the occasion of some meetings of Orangemen, "sackfuls of revolvers" were taken from them. That being so, he (Mr. Healy) had called the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that either the position of those who carried these revolvers was legal or illegal. If legal, whether there were "sackfuls" or otherwise, they should not have been interfered with; but, if illegal, they should have been prosecuted. He would also point out that over the whole of Ireland only some 60 or 70 prosecutions took place, and that the law was only enforced in one portion of Ireland in the instances he gave. The House would, therefore, see that they had the best reason for looking with suspicion upon the course which the Government had chosen to take in this matter. They had brought in the Bill ostensibly for the purpose of preventing large bodies of men coming to meetings with arms in their hands. But in the North of Ireland, against which the Bill was presumed to operate, what was the state of affairs? At present none of its provisions were in force in Antrim, Down, Derry, or Armagh, or, at all events, not in a large part of the latter. Did the House expect that, in times of excitement, Privy Councillors would be likely to spend even a five-pound note in journeying to Dublin to put an Act in force in districts in which they did not wish it to be enforced? What guarantee had they, if they passed the Act, that it would not be used for the whole of Ireland, but only for the lower Provinces—in fact, that it would not be used against the Orangemen at all? Men who talked so glibly about being prepared to shed the blood of Her Majesty's subjects would not be particular. The whole of the County Antrim remained, at the present moment, unproclaimed; and if the Bill was intended to put down armed bands of men in the County Antrim, or to be enforced, then why was not the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation issued? He saw that, at the present time, the Privy Council in Ireland, who were to direct the operations of the Bill, was composed of a number of Gentlemen in whom the people had no confidence; and it was, doubtless, owing to that that the Lord Lieutenant could not put the law in force in the North of Ireland, except by and with the advice of the Privy Council. Thus the Act could not be put in force without the assent of the Privy Council, and the House should bear in mind that there was not amongst that body any person in whom the general body of the people had hitherto been able to place the smallest confi- dence. Why, the people could not even get magistrates upon the Bench in Ireland, much less upon the Privy Council, in whose decisions they could repose confidence. As an instance, he would point to the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been removed from the Commission of the Peace. If he, the most representative and important man in Ireland, was not even allowed to sit upon the Magisterial Benches, was it to be supposed for a moment that he would be elected a Member of the Privy Council? He (Mr. Healy) found a list of the Members of that Body in Thom's Almanack for 1885, and it certainly afforded a most instructive study. The first name he found was that of the Prince of Wales, and, following those, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, the Lord Chancellor (of that time, who was Lord Ashbourne), the Duke of Leinster, the Marquess of Waterford, the Marquess of Drogheda, the Marquess of Headfort, the Marquess of Hartington, the Earl of Meath, the Earl of Belmore, Viscount Monck, and so on, with several other noble Lords. The Irish Judges, Lord FitzGerald, the late Irish Chief Secretary, Sir William Hart Dyke, Sir Robert Peel—and any measure which could be brought forward to secure that the right hon. Baronet who lately represented Tamworth should attend would be most acceptable—Mr. Justice Morris, Mr. Justice Chatterton, Mr. Justice Warren, Lord Justice Barry, Baron Dowse, Baron Palles, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Judge Ormsby, Chief Justice May, Mr. James Lowther, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Justice Porter, Lord Chancellor Naish, Mr. Hugh Holmes, late Attorney General for Ireland, Colonel E. R. King-Harman, Mr. John Monroe, Mr. Henry Bruen, &c, &c. In fact, a greater collection of curiosities was, perhaps, never gathered together into the Council Chamber. He would like to know, for one thing, if the Chief Secretary was to sit upon one side of the Table, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman), The O'Conor Don, Mr. M'Murrogh Kavanagh, and the others, were to sit opposite to him, what chance there would be of this Act being put in force in the North of Ireland? Those were the very Gentlemen who were recom- mending civil war in the North of Ireland, and they would every one of them insist upon the right of going into the Council Chamber, just as had been done in England when the Whig Peers interfered to prevent the bringing over of a Jacobite Prince, when the succession to Queen Anne was about being settled. How could they expect that men who advised the Orangemen to engage in civil war would, in the Privy Council Chamber, allow the Lord Lieutenant to use this Act against the Orangemen? They were not the men he took them for if they allowed any such thing. It might be said that the Judges would exercise a deliberate influence upon these Gentlemen; but there could be no guarantee that the Act would be properly enforced by the Privy Council as it was now constituted. Was he to be told that a man like Judge Lawson would not back them up, and give such men absolution afterwards in the Queen's Bench, if they were charged with high treason? The Government must be prepared to make large concessions as regarded the constitution of the Privy Council. Why should not the hon. Member for the City of Cork be on the Privy Council in preference to the noble Lord who represented the Isle of Arran? He (Mr. Healy) certainly was at a loss to know on what principle the Bill proceeded. He should prefer to leave the matter to the Lord Lieutenant in person, and he could not see why the Government could not accept his Amendment. The Lord Lieutenant was a responsible person; his words could be noted, and he was represented in the House by the Chief Secretary; but they could not have the same control over such men as the Representative of the Isle of Thanet, Mr. Bruen, or Justice Lawson. They would be exercising their Constitutional right, it was true, and no fault could be found with them; but he did not like the system. There was a way out of the difficulty. They were told by the Prime Minister that, in all probability, there would be an Autumn Session upon the Home Rule Bill. In the meantime the Orangemen, in order to prevent the Bill passing, would undertake the very same sort of amusement that they indulged in to prevent the passing of the Franchise Act. The interval would be used by those who pulled the string of the Orange Party, like the strings of marionettes were pulled for Paddington, Armagh, and North Down. They would get up a sort of gymnastic meeting with revolvers in their hands, and if the Act passed as it stood any amount of human gore might follow, and the Government would have a lively time of it. Now, what he would propose was this—that the Act should pass for one year, so that if the House of Lords threw out the Home Rule Bill, and if by any chance the Tories should come into power next year, the House would have the power of renewing the Bill. Otherwise, as he had said, there ought to be a very large accession to the Privy Council. There was really no necessity for passing the Act for more than a year. It was proposed to pass it for two years, and that, too, on the faith of its being properly exercised by a Liberal Government in whom they had confidence. It was possible, however, that the administration of the Act might pass into the hands of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), or into those of the Marquess of Salisbury; and they—the Nationalists—had no confidence whatever in them. He repeated that it would be only reasonable and fair to pass the Act for a year, and see how it worked, for then, if the Tories unhappily came into power, they would have the opportunity of retracing their ground, and criticizing the administration of the Act. The Lord Lieutenant was the Representative of the Queen in Ireland, and he failed to see why the Representative of the Isle of Thanet, Mr. Bruen, or Justice Lawson should have the powers conferred on them by the Act. There was an old saying, that "There's as good fish in the sea as ever were taken out," and there were as good men as those he named who would not have seats on the Privy Council. In fact, fresh blood was wanted in the Privy Council. He failed to see why so important an Officer as that of Privy Councillor should be conferred on men simply because they had served the Tory Party. The Tories always remembered their Friends, and made them Privy Councillors or something else; but the Liberals scarcely ever remembered their Friends, and never made any Members of the Privy Council, except those who had held high Office. The Tories were not such fools. When they were in Office they made magistrates as thick as blackbirds. They made Englishmen like the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet Members of the Privy Council. The Tories, in fact, never forgot their Friends. He repeated, why did the Liberals, when in Office, forget their Friends; and why was it that the Tories never forgot them? So far as Ireland was concerned, the answer was plain enough. If the Government was afraid to trust the hon. Member for the City of Cork, let them, at least, appoint some of their political supporters. He would therefore move the Amendment standing in his name, and on a great number of grounds he hoped the House would accept it.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

, in seconding the Amendment, said, that it did not go far enough as far as he was concerned. It was the greatest possible humiliation to them that a Government for which they had a greater respect than they ever had for any English Government before should consider it necessary to renew this Act, which had been a source of great humiliation and annoyance to Ireland. Anyone who had lived in the country for the past five years would know how unnecessary it was to renew the Act, which was a most odious one. It was a most extraordinary phenomenon to notice the reasons put forward by the Government for the renewal of the Act. They admitted that it was not necessary to direct it against the National Party in Ireland, and they further admitted that it would be perfectly useless to put down or get rid of crime. Who, then, was the Act directed against? Why, against those who figured as the supporters of law and order in Ireland, and whose preposterous boast they had heard so much of. For himself, he had not the slightest fear himself of the bullying and brag of the Orangemen. He believed that if there were no Arms Act the Orangemen would sing very low. It should be remembered that when the Arms Bill was announced they blocked it. The Orange people thought to frighten the English into the idea that they would fight. According to the Chief Secretary, this Act would take the arms out of their hands; and he would ask honest English Members, who were frightened by the boastings and threats of war of the Ulster Orangemen, to notice how the Leaders of the Orangemen in that House would vote on the Arms Act. They wanted to be disarmed so badly that they reminded one of the man who wanted so desparately to fight that he went to a policeman and said—"For God's sake take hold of me, or I'll kill someone." They wanted the House of Commons to take away their arms, and then they would pose before the English people as having been ready to fight, only, unfortunately, the Government had taken their arms from them. But there was another side to the picture, and it was that on account of the preposterous boastings of those gentlemen their country was to be placed under a degrading law, and the Nationalist Party had no security whatever that it would be honestly worked. It was because they believed that the Act would be used for the purpose of paving the way for those gallant warriors of the North of Ireland he opposed the Bill. Those men would be very ready, when they had guns and revolvers in their hands, to meet men who had no weapons at all. If a Tory Government came into power, they might disarm the Catholic populace and leave the Ulster Orangemen armed. If the Catholics were left unarmed and the Ulstermen armed, then he could answer for it that the Orangemen would be ready to take the field quick enough. There were numerous reasons why he objected to the Bill. In the first place, he regarded it as an unnecessary degradation; and, further, he thought it would have the very opposite effect to that which the Government, with perfect honesty, desired to see—namely, an end put to the disturbances in Ulster. He thoroughly believed with Bishop Berkeley that if a wall could be built round Ulster, and there be no English interference, all would be well. He was perfectly convinced that if there were no more Coercion Acts or Arms Acts, and no more interference by Englishmen, who incited the Orangemen or others in Ireland to turbulent proceedings, the Catholic and the Orangeman would lie down like the lion and the lamb together. All the disturbances they had seen of late had been due to outside interference. It was human nature that it should be so. It was a natural tendency, if men were left to live together and to practise neighbourly offices for themselves, they would be more happy and united than if they were interfered with or incited by people outside. Those of them who knew Ulster, and who lived in it, knew that, except at the Party anniversaries, any such Act as a Crimes Act was not needed. If, however, an Arms Act was to be passed in spite of all opposition, they were entitled to ask from the Chief Secretary some assurance that the Act was meant to be, and would be, used for the purpose for which it was asked. As the Act stood at present, it was singularly ill-fitted for that purpose. In the first place, it did away with the control of the Privy Council, and left the matter in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. He would rather see the Act made by that House to apply to the whole of Ireland, being made operative for only one year. He demanded that for the reason that the Nationalists had always found in the past, no matter what pledges were given in that House, that the Act was applied to the Southern and Nationalist, and not to the Northern and Conservative parts of the country. Again, the Court which was to deal with individual cases was a Court that rendered nugatory all hope of its being impartially administered. He objected to a Court constituted of "two or more Justices of the Peace sitting in Petty Sessions," and desired to have cases dealt with by one or more Resident Magistrates. A Court consisting of "two or more Justices of the Peace sitting in Petty Sessions" simply meant that the North of Ireland Catholics should have no arms, and the Protestants what they liked. Further, he submitted that the penalty of imprisonment for three months was a very severe punishment, and that the term ought to be shorter. Lastly, the power which the police had of arresting any person suspected of having arms should also be abolished, for it was a most humiliating and arbitrary power to put into the hands of the police. The whole question of renewing the Act had been brought about by the absurd proceedings of the Orangemen. Before the House went into Committee he thought they were entitled to call on the Chief Secretary to give them some information as to his views on these points—first of all, as to doing away with the Privy Council and substituting the Lord Lieutenant; next, as to extending the application of the Act to the whole of Ireland; thirdly, as to the constitution of the Courts; fourthly, as to the power to take away licences; and, fifthly, as to the reduction of the terms of imprisonment. He might say, in conclusion, that he thought some further power of appeal ought to be given, and clauses inserted for the guidance of the Courts as to the infliction of punishment, for at present a man might be imprisoned for having a rusty and useless flint gun, or even an old gun lock.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no measure dealing with the disarmament of Orange districts will be satisfactory or impartially administered which requires to be put in force by a proclamation of the Irish Privy Council, composed almost entirely of members of or sympathisers with the Orange organisation,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

In reply to my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I have to say that I do not suppose my views on the principle of the Arms Act are materially different to his; but I think that some of his remarks as to certain portions of the Act have been made under an entire misapprehension as to what is our duty now. The cases of imprisonment to which he referred were dealt with under the Crimes Act, and not the Arms Act, and that has been general since 1882. It should be remembered that this is nothing more than a mere Continuance Bill; and it is, therefore, very unusual to attempt to make any alteration in the original Act. It is true that I have put down an Amendment on the Paper, the effect of which is to modify a clause; but what the hon. Member proposes is to open up the whole Act that we are about to renew. That is altogether an inexpedient proposal, and one which we cannot entertain.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

On the revival of the Crimes Act it was proposed to renew the Alien Act of 1848.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Very likely; but I was not in the House at that time. The Bill gives the Lord Lieutenant certain powers, and when he obtains the assent of the Privy Council he can, if he thinks proper, proclaim the two or three counties which are still left outside the provisions of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. Healy) asked me to assent to the limitation of the expiring Act to one year. But that is a proposal to which I cannot assent. The hon. and learned Member rested his appeal to me on the ground that at the end of this year there might be a Conservative Ministry in our place. Well, Sir, we do not entertain any apprehension of the kind. We propose to renew the Act for two years; and I may add that this Act is not absolutely necessary for the purpose of dealing with the phenomena of lively times, referred to as possible, by the hon. Member, because there is ample power to deal with and put down riotous and violent assemblies. Objection has been raised to the Lord Lieutenant being called upon to consult the Privy Council before proclaiming a given district or county. I do not share in those objections. With regard to the constitution of the Irish Privy Council, I have had the matter looked into, and of the 42 Members, not including the Princes of the Blood Royal, the Commander of the Forces, and other officials, 23 are Conservatives and 20 Liberals.

MR. T. M. HEALY

How many Nationalists are among them?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I had never thought that a Nationalist would accept the position of a Privy Councillor in Ireland. I believe that there are no Members of the Privy Council connected with the extreme Parties in politics. Therefore, it is not fair to describe the Privy Council as composed mainly, and almost entirely, of members of the Orange organization.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; there is one Orangeman who is a Privy Councillor.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Then I should say that was quite sufficient. The hon. and learned Member described to the House the manner in which Privy Councillors trooped to the august Chamber on occasions of great excitement in the country. I do not regard his description as at all accurate. I am the latest addition to the Irish Privy Council, and its Members are bound by an oath not to reveal what takes place on those occasions when the Privy Council meets. I believe, however, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) did, on one occasion, disclose, or rather describe, what did take place at a meeting of the Irish Privy Council.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

No; I never did anything of the sort.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I am told you did give some sort of outline.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Certainly not.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Well, I was so informed; but I will pass that over. But I may say, without any breach, I think, of the secrecy imposed upon all Members of the Privy Council, that what happens at its meeting is very formal—is, in fact, purely formal. There is no notion of debate, or of Party division. No Party considerations are allowed to have weight at the meetings of the Privy Council. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry has referred to what might be expected to happen if a Privy Councillor in Ireland, holding the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Colonel King-Harman), attended and expressed his views. But the hon. and gallant Member, if he were a Member of the Privy Council in Ireland, would no more think of attending its meetings than an English Privy Councillor would think of attending the meetings of the English Privy Council, unless he were summoned to attend. The Privy Council of Ireland has very important functions to perform in connection with the regulation of fairs, tramways, and fisheries. In all such matters it plays a tolerably active part. But in questions affecting the preservation of law and order it would be against practice, it would be against decency, and against all precedent for Privy Councillors to deny the powers which the Executive declared to be necessary for public order and public safety. The words of the Act are quite clear as to the terms and conditions under which any district may be proclaimed. Reference has been made to the fact that Belfast has been proclaimed. That is true; but Belfast was proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act in 1873. The Peace Preservation Act is an entirely different measure to this. The Arms Acts is a very little Coercion Act indeed compared with it, and yet the Privy Council did not resist the proclamation of Belfast, and the extension to it of the very severe provisions of the old Act. Therefore, on the grounds I have stated, I cannot at all accept the hon. and learned Member's account of the composition of the Privy Council, nor do I accept his view as to their performance of their duties, and I cannot comply with his request that he should so alter the Act as to enable the Lord Lieutenant to put in force the provisions of this Act without the advice of the Privy Council. But if there was not that strong reason for refusing what the hon. and learned Member asks, I should demur to opening up the provisions of the Act on a mere Continuance Bill. I may say, moreover, there have been very few complaints indeed of the manner in which the Arms Act has been administered. I have had very few complaints indeed of the way in which the Act works; and, under the circumstances, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow us to go into Committee. I may, however, give him this undertaking—that if it should become necessary to put the Act in force, it will be administered with perfect fairness and impartiality. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) wants us to give an assurance that the Arms Act shall apply to all the ports of Ireland. The Act does apply to all ports. The importation of arms is permitted in 12 ports; but it will take place under the supervision of the Custom House officers and under very stringent regulations. The question of extending the Proclamations to all portions of Ireland engages the attention of the Government at this moment; and I am sure that the House will believe my assurance when I state that, on the least sign of disturbance breaking out, the Proclamation will be extended to those districts which are now exempt. The Government will, undoubtedly, and with promptness, resort to the powers they already possess.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

said, it was generally understood that, if the Bill was to apply at all, it was to apply to Ulster. Now, in three Provinces in Ireland there was really no necessity for such a measure as this, inasmuch as the people were practically all of the one mind, and there was very little chance of any collision of opposing Parties when they were nearly all of one way of thinking. As an Ulster Member, therefore, he more than questioned the wisdom of any such measure as this; and as a Member for one of the counties where the Nationalist and Orange feeling was pretty well divided, he might be permitted to say that he was extremely sorry that the Government had not allowed the Bill to drop. He was afraid the general impression throughout the country produced by the renewal would be that the Government were really alarmed and frightened by the prospects which had been held out by certain people in Ulster about disturbances in that Province, and as a sort of proof that the language used predicting civil war was not altogether absurd, but that it was intended that something should really follow, and that it really meant something more than sound and fury. He believed that Nationalists and Orangemen alike would, if polled on the subject, be found to be dead against the renewal of the Bill. Now, in the county he represented—Fermanagh—the Nationalists undoubtedly were not armed. But the Orangemen were to a very great extent, and yet he believed the feeling of the Nationalists, both Protestants and Catholics, in that county would be in favour of dropping the Bill; and why? Because it was bound to engender a sort of bad feeling. Neighbours would, under such a measure, develop bad feelings of jealousy resulting from inequalities and injustice, and the Bill was calculated in that respect to do much harm. But, as a matter of fact, another reason why he objected to the renewal of the Bill was, that it certainly looked bad that that should be done at a moment when a Bill had been introduced, which would undoubtedly result in the permanent pacification of Ireland. Not only, however, was he opposed to the principle of the Bill, but he objected to the way in which it had hitherto been administered, and in which it was intended to continue to administer it. How could they expect people to look with equanimity upon an Act which relegated the power of deciding who should carry arms to those who were, in a great many instances, not only opposed to the people in sympathy and feelings, but who had openly expressed themselves to be so? He believed further that the Bill would put a premium on the possession of arms. It was a sort of Coercion Act, and would give colour to the idea that civil war was likely to take place. The Irish Party were opposed to the measure also, because of the fact that they did not anticipate very much, fairness from the way in which it would be administered. In the Privy Council, the Nationalists were not represented; and it was no answer to say, that there were Liberals as well as Conservatives in that Body, and that there was only one Orange Privy Councillor. But one Orangeman there was quite enough to taint the lot. The fact that that Council had such power as they had under the Bill was quite enough to justify the opposition to it. There was not in Fermanagh one Justice of the Peace in sympathy with the Nationalists; and how could the people look with sympathy on the administration of the Act by men who were admittedly of anti-popular opinions? The most partizan magistrates, Orangemen of the most pronounced type, would be empowered to administer the Act, and to take arms out of Nationalists' hand and put them into Orange hands. Some time ago, Viscount Cole, a late Member of that House, and still a magistrate of Fermanagh, said he preached against Roman Catholics as a body, and that they should be exterminated and sent out of Fermanagh and into some other place. Was that a proper man to administer this Act? Another Orange magistrate was brought before his brother magistrates and fined for assault and battery; and another said that, under certain circumstances, the people would be justified in rising up against the law passed by that House. It was ridiculous, on the face of it, to say that such men should be intrusted with the administering of such, an Act. If the Act must pass, well and good; but at least the alternative suggested should be adopted—namely, that the power of giving licences should be taken out of the hands of the local magistrates and given to the Resident Magistrates, the paid servants of the Crown. It would be better to make that concession than go to the country with the Bill as it now stood. Bitterness against the Government would result from the measure being left as it was. He would appeal to the Prime Minister—Was it a right and proper thing to allow men like Viscount Cole to decide, or have a voice in deciding, whether people should have arms—Vis- count Cole who, as he stated, advised the extermination of Catholics——

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I rise to Order. Viscount Cole never used such an expression; he explained that he never used it.

MR. SPEAKER

Order!

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I say that Viscount Cole distinctly advised the extermination of the Roman Catholics.

MR. JOHNSTON

I deny it.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I defy contradiction, and if the hon. Gentleman, who is so distinguished in his Party, can prove the contrary, I will apologize humbly. Viscount Cole is a foolish sort of man, and not very much notice was taken of him at the time; indeed, someone told me that his Lordship was a lunatic. I would ask that the power be taken out of the hands of local magistrates known to be partizans, and given to the Resident Magistrates, and that certainly the local magistrates should not adjudicate in cases arising out of breaches of this law. How can a county like Fermanagh, where there is not a magistrate with popular sympathies, be expected to be contented with the administration of this Act by these men? One man said that, as a general rule, citizens were to obey the law, but that if the Home Rule Bill was passed, the people who happened not to like it should rise in arms against it; and in saying that he doubtless felt encouraged by the statements of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). All they asked was that the power of granting licences should be taken out of the hands of notoriously partizan men, and transferred to the paid magistrates of the Crown. The Nationalist Members had no fear whatever of civil war—the talk indulged in on the subject was all "bunkum," led off by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who incited the Orangemen of the North to revolt. If the Protestants of Ulster make up their mind to fight, they can do so, for they are sturdy and able men, and will make good soldiers; but I know sufficient of them to predict they will not fight unless the Irish Parliament passes some measure interfering with their rights or privileges, and that they will certainly not do. I hope, in conclusion, that the suggested alterations will be adopted.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY (Glasgow, Blackfriars)

said, he was happy to support the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) in the appeal he had made. The measure could only be put into operation when a county was proclaimed, and if a county was proclaimed it ought to be done for some good reason, and the Government would always be careful to select competent men as Resident Magistrates. He considered the power should rest entirely with the Resident Magistrates. In a proclaimed district, the licence was to be granted by a Resident Magistrate; but, if he refused a licence, he could be compelled to grant it on a certificate of two magistrates that the applicant was a proper person to be intrusted with a licence. If, however, as he understood, the 4th clause was to be omitted, he did not see that there was very much to complain of; but, at the same time, he thought the Government was much to blame for not having made up their minds with respect to the Act long ago, and for not having brought it in at a time when it could have been fully considered, and when, if Amendments were to be made in it, they could have been made with the full assent of the House after proper discussion. Although the omission of Clause 4 would greatly improve the Bill, it would not make it completely satisfactory. As to the necessity of an Arms Act, he could not see how anyone knowing anything of Ireland could have the slightest doubt that such an Act was required. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew that before the present Act was passed, revolvers, muskets, and all other sorts of weapons were sold everywhere in large quantities openly, not merely in shops for the purpose, but even in drapers' and grocers' shops, it being maintained that every person should be armed. He thought it was highly necessary that some check should be applied to such a state of things. When the present Act was passed, the Government had to pay compensation to traders for the loss of the sale of their stock of arms, and he himself had procured compensation for some traders in the county of Galway. Since that time the Act had been in operation without there being, as far as he knew, any real ground of complaint against it.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Tyrone, S.)

said, that to hear the hon. Gentle- man opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry) expressing any approval of what the Irish Party did, was perhaps to be regarded as a happy augury for their agreement on other and more important subjects. He (Mr. O'Brien) shared with his hon. Friend's regret that the Government were not able to make up their minds to discard the Arms Bill altogether. It did seem very odd that the Government should interrupt the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill to pass an Arms Bill. However, he was satisfied that, as the Chief Secretary said, he and they would not personally differ very much on the matter. The Chief Secretary had stated, and he agreed with him, that this was not so much a question of legislation, as of administration. Unfortunately, up to the present, the administration of the Arms Act, even in those districts in the North of Ireland where it was nominally in force, had been an absolute sham. He wished it to be thoroughly understood that neither to him nor his Friends would there be any hardship in the disarming of their fellow-countrymen in the North of Ireland. In the North of Ireland, the trouble arose not from the conduct of the farmers in the counties, but from the action of rowdies in the towns. It was they who were in possession of revolvers, and they would continue to be so until the Government did something to check the Orange magistrates, who had unlimited licence to keep arms, because it was, unfortunately, the Orange landlords who bought arms and distributed them. [Colonel WARING: Oh, oh!] He did not know if his hon. and gallant Friend had himself been generous in the matter of distribution; but it was perfectly notorious that the Orange landlords in the North were building Orange halls, and were equipping and keeping the whole thing going. In point of fact, the whole business in the North of Ireland was simply a landlord organization, with, he admitted, a certain sprinkling of Gentlemen like the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston)—perfectly honest Gentlemen, but who, also, at certain seasons of the year, were not exactly models of political sanity. He held that the first condition of putting an end to rowdyism in the North of Ireland was to deal with the Orange magistrates and deprive them of any power whatever in the administration of the Act, not merely the power of giving certificates such as he was glad to say the right hon. Gentleman proposed, but any power whatever of interfering as magistrates, and doing what was one of the grossest scandals in Ireland—namely, sitting as magistrates in judgment on the misconduct of those who, by their own speeches, they had incited to outrage. If these landlords in the North were only once brought to their senses, and half-a-dozen resolute police officers sent to those troublesome towns when occasion arose, it would be extremely easy to deal with these revolver men without special measures at all. If the men in the South of Ireland went and displayed their arms, as was constantly done in the North of Ireland, and fired shots in the streets, the police would pounce upon them and take the arms from them. But why was not something of the kind done in the North of Ireland? But the police would not dream of doing such a thing. In his own constituency the police constantly stood by whilst shots were fired all about the streets. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman's best policy was to show these men that the Government would stand no nonsense, and that wherever arms were used in the streets, they would be seized, and the carriers of them punished. But the policy hitherto adopted in the administration of the Act was, when there was no disturbance, to refuse arms to one section and to grant them to another; and he was sure that the House would agree that there was no reason why a respectable man, a farmer, should be deprived of the right of having a shot gun. The law, if passed at all, should be administered impartially.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he was by no means an out-and-out supporter of the Nationalist Party; but he thought they had much ground for the claims they were now advancing, and he should like to urge the Government to consider whether they could not meet them. The Resident Magistrates were men who, he assumed, would be acceptable to all parts of the House, and he thought that to them the decision should be given rather than to the local magistrates. Perhaps, if the Government would give the administra- tion of the Act to the Resident Magistrates, the Irish Members would withdraw their opposition.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I have already explained that the Resident Magistrates and Constabulary Inspectors, purely official persons, are the only persons who have power to grant licences under the Proclamation, and to carry out the provisions of the Act.

MR. HOLMES (Dublin University)

said, that from the first moment of the Session, when the question was brought forward, he, with the experience and knowledge of Ireland upon which he could form an opinion, was in favour of renewing the Act. An Act of the kind was certainly very useful for preventing collisions between opposing Parties in various parts of Ireland, its application not being confined, as he understood it was not to be confined, to one part of Ireland more than another. His experience in Irish Administration from 1877 to 1880, during which time a similar Ant was in force, was, that the Act had a distinct effect in the way of checking the commission of outrages which were planned, but could not be carried out in some cases, owing to the want of arms; and in other cases, because of the inadequate nature of the arms made use of. Therefore, he thought it very desirable that this Act should be renewed. Had it been proposed that the Act should apply only to particular parts of the country, he should have resisted it; but he would point out that it applied to all parts of Ireland, because it was within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to extend it to any district where it was required. Some observations had been made by the hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) as to the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," and he should not be doing his duty if he remained silent and did not protest against an attack upon a Body which had always discharged its duty in a spirit of fairness and justice. ["Oh, oh!"] No hon. Member who had taken part in that attack had instanced a single case where the Act had been put in force in a district where it could in justice be said that injustice was done to any one person. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Wexford was one.] The composition of the Privy Council was not of a one-sided character; it was largely composed of gentlemen who had always professed strongly Liberal opinions. True, there were no Nationalists on the Privy Council; but, so far as he could gather, Members of that Party were among the last who desired to have a seat on that Board. It was within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district in Ireland. All he was bound to do was to seek the advice of the Privy Council, but he was not hampered in any way, and, in the end, responsibility would rest with the Lord Lieutenant; but he was required, in order to have full consideration, to seek the advice of the Council; and surely it was desirable that an Act which involved considerable interference with ordinary liberties should not be enforced without as full a consideration as possible. Further, he entirely agreed with the Amendment that had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, dealing with the Licensing Authority. When hon. Members below the Gangway suggested that Orange magistrates should not be allowed to adjudicate upon the Act, he thought they were making a proposition which few could agree to. Suppose hon. Members below the Gangway had the government in their hands, were they to suppose they would deprive Orangemen of the Commission of the Peace? He understood hon. Members to say that there should be perfect equality between Orangemen and Nationalists. Personally, he knew very little of the Orange Society; but certainly, up to the present, he had heard nothing relative to its members that should disqualify them from the Common Law rights of Her Majesty's subjects. [An hon. MEMBER: Nobody wants to.] Very well; but why was it that the Act did not apply to parts of Ulster? It was because that there, as in other parts of Ireland, the Act had been fairly administered; and if districts in the North were not proclaimed it was simply because there were now no outrages there. As regarded the appointments to the Magistracy, or the administration of the law, he believed the Act would be put in force by the Chief Secretary fairly and equitably; and believing that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested made the Act more valuable than before, and, in point of fact, brought it in harmony with the old Peace Preservation Acts, he would support the Bill.

MR. J. E. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said, there was no provision in the Act that could prevent a man, with an evil intention, from obtaining the means to do and carry it out. If the use of arms were free and open, there would be a public spirit created, and an Act of this kind would be found to be as little wanted in Ireland as in England. If an Orangeman committed an outrage, he ought to be punished, just the same as a Ribbonman—who was of the same class—would be punished. They should make no distinction between Orange and Nationalist magistrates. All they sought was, that fair play should be done on both sides. Let both sides be punished if they committed outrages. He opposed these Arms Acts for the main reason that they were simply coercion, and coercion without the least possible ground to justify it. Men who used arms would use them, because they knew they would not be punished. It was well known that the administration of the Act would be partial. All this legislation was founded upon distrust of the Irish people and only created suspicion and distrust. While the Arms Act was in full force in Derry, a meeting of Catholics was going to be held at a hall in the town, when it was seized by Orangemen. The latter proceeded to the roof, and from there fired into the faces of the police for nearly half-an-hour. During that time, a number of Orange magistrates in the hall below made no effort whatever to stop the firing. Then, again, the 'Prentice Boys of Derry had certain cannon which were all removed just before the Arms Act was passed, and, rumour said, were secreted at the house of the Duke of Abercorn. The men who in these cases used arms did so because, in the first place, they knew that they would not be punished; and, in the second place, because they believed and knew that the administration of the law would be partial. It was only when the police were present in large numbers that a riot and shot firing took place. If any measure of success had been admitted to attend the Administration of Earl Spencer, it was that part in which he exercised the ordinary law. There were rowdies on both sides; but a remedy for the present state of things would, be found if the Common Law were applied firmly in Ulster, and if the police exercised the same vigour there as they did in the South. As representing the Nationalist spirit in Ulster, he desired to say that the great majority of the inhabitants of that Province, Catholics as well as Protestants, were quiet, law-abiding, industrious people, who required no special legislation one way or the other. There was, indeed, a rowdy element, equally strong on both sides; but if the ordinary law were properly administered there would be far less disturbance.

Mr. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

said, he thought this measure distinctly came within the category of exceptional legislation. At the same time, it was perfectly consistent to insist that if they were to have legislation of this kind at all it should be fairly and impartially administered against both political Parties in Ireland. Up to the present time that had not been the case, for although the Government had possessed these exceptional powers in regard to the carrying of arms, they had been practically exercised for the purpose of keeping one portion of the community disarmed and at the mercy of the other political Party. An hon. Friend of his had described to the House his experiences of a political meeting held during the recent Election campaign. A local Orangeman came out to the meeting, in the presence of a large crowd, and presented a revolver at the crowd. He also described how the evidence was deposed by three independent witnesses, and how the prisoner charged with the offence practically made no defence—he examined no witnesses, and merely contented himself with stating that the weapon was not a revolver but only a pipe case. The result of the case was, that whereas the Resident Magistrate was in favour of a conviction, there were on the Bench half-a-dozen Orangemen who dissented, and in the end the prisoner walked off scot-free. In the face of these facts, he did not think that they were asking an unreasonable thing that some revision should be made in the tribunal of administering the Act. He thought the House would see that it would be a most deplorable thing that the administration of this Act should be left in the hands of the local magistrates, in whom it was practically vested. They would then have gentlemen sitting on the Bench to administer justice, whose object would really be to defeat the ends of justice. There was another point equally im- portant—the question of the existing licences. In renewing the Act, he apprehended that the licences granted under the former Act would not cease to have effect. Now, the Irish Members complained that the tribunal which would have power to deal with the matter would be composed of the local Orangemen of the North, who would use that power to place arms in the hands of their friends. With the Orangemen of the North the possession of weapons was almost universal, as had been on several occasions proved to the House. The Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to deal with this matter was practically illusory, for no provision was made enabling the Government to revoke the power exercised by magistrates of that class. Beyond that, those magistrates would not want that power, for they had already placed the arms in the hands of their friends. For himself, he would both move and support Amendments calculated to amend the law on the points to which he had already adverted.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he had a very strong objection to this, as to all Coercion Acts, applied only to one part of the United Kingdom. Such repressive legislation was not desirable, and he was sure that a large majority in that House were sick of the constant discussions to which that class of legislation gave rise. He would, therefore, support any course of procedure which would tend to make it more difficult, thereby bringing it to a speedy end. The time of the House was wasted uselessly, and he did not think a much stronger argument could be used against it. If any justification were needed for the Government of Ireland Bill, it was to be found in the fact that this Bill was being brought forward by a Liberal Government. He sympathized with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentlemen below the Gangway, and would vote for it.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Dublin, S.)

, who rose amid cries of "Divide!" said, he would not occupy the time of the House many minutes. He merely rose to state that he, like his hon. Colleagues, regarded this as a Coercion Act, and he therefore felt it to be his duty to vote against it. There could perhaps be no stronger proof advanced of the ne- cessity of granting Home Rule to Ireland, than the fact that these constant Coercion Acts proved that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament moved too slowly to enable them to rule Ireland justly. The Irish Members also objected to the administration of the Act under the present system. He would give the House one instance which came to his knowledge. In the county of Wexford, where he lived, there had not been a single agrarian outrage committed, nevertheless the Arms Act was applied there. A number of very respectable farmers asked him to try and obtain leave for them to keep guns for the protection of the crops on their property. He waited upon some of his then friends, the local magistrates, and asked them if they could see their way to give these men leave to keep guns. They informed him that these men "were Land Leaguers," and that weapons, therefore, would not be given to them. In the North of Ireland, almost every farmer had a gun, because the magistrates were Orangemen, and they would not refuse licences to men of the same Society. He thought that, in view of the possibility of a General Election coming on, it was very desirable to limit the supply of arms given exclusively to partizans. The working of the present Act had, however, amounted to this—that Catholics would not get arms, while Protestants would. He thought there were, therefore, strong reasons for opposing the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 104: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 108.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Continuance of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 5).

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The object of the Amendment which I propose to move is to leave out "1888" for the purpose of substituting "1887." I do not think this Amendment will require much discussion. The object of the Bill is to continue the Peace Preservation Act of 1881; but as the Government have brought in a Bill to alter the Government of Ireland, and to give the people some share in it, one year ought to be long enough for the continuance of this repressive Act. The Act, as it stands, is a perfect sham. For the last 80 or 90 years there has existed in the North of Ireland a Party in ascendancy, who have been anti-national, and who are now distinctly disloyal, and it is through this Party that you propose to administer this Act against the Orangemen. The object of this Act has been to restrict the use of arms; but it has never succeeded in carrying out that object, and that is another reason why we should give it up as a sham. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will tell us how many searches have been made for revolvers and other arms under the 1st section of the original Act; and I should like further to know what arms, when discovered, have been forfeited; whether one single weapon in the whole town of Belfast has been seized under this Act, which has been in force now for five years, and which it is proposed to continue for the next two years? I do not believe that any arms have been seized, or ever will, and I am satisfied that this Act has only been laughed at in the North of Ireland. It would not prevent one Orangeman from going armed to a meeting, or prevent a single assassination or murder from taking place. Then, again, there is another point; this Act pretends to apply to armed assemblies, and these occur only in the North of Ireland. Why should it be extended to the whole of the country? I am certainly of opinion that the ordinary law, as it stands, is quite strong enough, and there is not the slightest pretence that there are any armed assemblies outside Ulster; and instead of being an Arms Act, it might be entitled an Act to enable the local magistrates to harass persons who are unpopular with them. For these reasons I should like to see the Act confined to one year; and I therefore propose, in line 9, to omit "eight," for the purpose of inserting "seven."

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "eight," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Clause."

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I hope that the Chief Secretary will be able to give the Committee some information in regard not so much to the licences granted, as to the number of searches under the Act. We are told that this Act has been enforced in Ulster, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how many search warrants have been issued in that Province, what arms have been surrendered, and what number have been captured in Ulster? Before the Act is renewed, I think we ought to have a Return of the number of licences granted and revoked in Ulster, and the number of licences refused. I also trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I may say that the town of Belfast was proclaimed in 1881, and has, therefore, been practically proclaimed ever since the Act has been in operation.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But it has never been fully carried out.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I cannot tell the hon. and learned Member exactly how many search warrants have been issued in any particular part of Ireland; but I may say that in the first year of this Act between 700 and 800 warrants were issued, but only about 150 prosecutions took place. Certainly in a large majority of instances the search took place without finding arms. I cannot say how many revolvers, rifles, and guns there are in Belfast. I cannot answer that question offhand, but my impression is that in the North, since 1881, there have been considerable seizures of arms and surrender of arms. In the few remarks I made on moving that the House should go into Committee I dealt with the point of the limitation of the powers of the Act. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the Government to bring in an Act of this kind, if it is worth bringing in at all, and to limit its duration for a single year. Heretofore all Acts of this kind have been in operation for five years. We should be very sorry to bring in an Act for five years, but two years is so very short a time that I do not think any legitimate complaint can be made of the date; and, on the other hand, it would be childish to propose a renewal of the Act unless we did not make provision for it to be in opera- tion for a reasonable time. We have considered, and we still consider, and I have heard no argument to the contrary, that two years are a reasonable time; and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The Chief Secretary has said that it has heretofore been the custom to bring in an Act of this kind for five years; but surely this is the last Act of this description that is likely to be brought forward for a good many years, and I think it would be advantageous to fix a shorter period. I have a distinct recollection of moving a similar Amendment in regard to the last Arms Act, and I remember a speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), in which the right hon. Gentleman stated as a reason for enacting it for five years that in olden times it was the practice to pass Acts of the same kind for only one or two years, and there was a Parliamentary understanding among hon. Members that they would always be renewed when it became necessary, but at the time referred to by the right hon. Gentleman there was such a strenuous opposition to the enactment of repressive measures of this kind that he found himself obliged to extend the period from one or two years to five years. I have a distinct recollection of that speech, and I know that it was on an Arms Act and not a Coercion Act. That reason has now altogether disappeared, and the Government cannot complain that they are afraid of anything like obstruction to the passing of this Bill. They have been able to bring it in and to pass the second reading, and in view of the very much larger and more important measure for the Government of Ireland now before the House, we have not offered the Government any practical resistance or put them to any trouble. I think the Government ought to take that fact into account, and return to the old plan of renewing the Act for such period only as is absolutely necessary. Instead of taking the maximum I think they ought to take the minimum, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having declared that a period of five years was necessary on account of the difficulty of passing a Bill, now that there is no such difficulty it would certainly be better for the Government to renew this Act for one year. If, unfortunately, we should next year find ourselves in the same position, and a friendly Government should deem it necessary to bring in a Bill again for renewing the Act for another year, although they may undoubtedly expect the same amount of opposition and division which the present Bill has received, there would be nothing like factious opposition offered to it. Seeing that we have virtually dropped our opposition and have given the Government a very small amount of trouble, I think we ought to be treated leniently. I do not see why the Government should endeavour to enforce this Bill for a longer period than is absolutely necessary, and if we get from them that larger measure which we hope for, this Bill will not be required at all. I therefore support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance).

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has objected to arguments being put forward similar to those which were used in discussing the second reading of the Bill. Now, I submit that there may be many reasons urged for the alteration of the clause which also affected the second reading of the Bill, and I must maintain that the arguments which were used both upon the first and second reading of the Bill can be urged now with much greater force for the alteration of this clause. One reason for the alteration of the date of expiration is that the Bill may have the effect of depriving a good many tenant farmers of their shot guns, and thus render it impossible for them to protect their crops. Therefore, the Act ought to be in operation for as short a time as possible. If it is to be in operation for two years, it would leave their crops unprotected and practically destroyed for that length of time, whereas if it is only renewed for one year, only one-half of the damage would take place. Then, again, it is not desirable that the unequal administration of Acts like this should be enforced for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. Very frequently it is a source of much inconvenience. I can give a case in point which occurred with regard to myself. Some years ago, being in the habit of travelling, I applied for a licence to carry a revolver, as I was often in possession of large sums of money; but although I represented all the facts, the magistrates of Cork refused me a licence, although I have known them give licences to bailiffs and others who were employed in instituting most obnoxious proceedings. In West Cork, Messrs. Payne and Barrett gave licences to bailiffs of notoriously bad character, who were known to have threatened innocent men passing to and fro; yet these magistrates, who then had the administration of the Act, will still retain the power of granting licences to persons of notoriously bad character, while they can deprive other persons, who really require them for their own safety and protection, of the right of carrying arms. Unhappily, great favouritism is displayed in the administration of the Act, especially in the North of Ireland, and, therefore, the arguments which were advanced on the second reading of the Bill may be applied with much greater force to an alteration of this clause. There are other points which might be advanced, but I think it would be better to reserve them until we come to discuss the other parts of the Bill. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of giving way on this point, and that he will have the Bill altered so that the Act will be in operation only for 12 months instead of two years.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I trust that my hon. Friend will press this point as to the duration of the Bill being confined to one year. The Chief Secretary has given us assurances; but I look with some misgiving on the character of the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as the present Government are concerned, I have every confidence in them; but, at the same time, long and bitter experience makes men wary, and we know in the past how these Acts have been administered. It is within the bounds of possibility that the present Government may be succeeded by a Tory Government, who would thus have to administer the Act; and I cannot help regarding the fact with suspicion that the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) will vote for the Bill. The Chief Secretary may say that he is not responsible for that, and that he is determined to carry out the provisions of the Bill impartially; but the hon. Members I have mentioned do not mean any- thing of the kind, or they would not vote for the Bill. I do not speak so much for the hon. Member for South Belfast, but certainly that remark applies to the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. Nobody can say that our opposition to this measure has been of an obstructive or an unreasonable character; on the contrary, we have been very moderate, considering what an Arms Act is, and I think we have afforded good ground for saying that, considering the uncertainty of the future, it is not necessary to pass a Bill for so long a period as two years. I have no doubt that the present Government will be in Office this time 12 months; but it is impossible to insure that, and what we say is that the Representatives for Ireland should have another opportunity of criticizing the way in which the Act may have been administered. Irish Members can have very little doubt as to what the character of the action of a Tory Government, largely influenced by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), would be in the administration of such an Act. I cannot conceal from myself an uneasy feeling at what the prospects would be if the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) and his Party were in power in the North of Ireland. We want to take every precaution that the horrible policy of coercion which has been carried out so long in Ireland shall be brought to an end, and that no direct encouragement shall continue to be given to religious animosity and hatred in the North. The system of placing arms in the hands of one section and disarming the other undoubtedly has a tendency to keep up persecution and bad blood on one side and animosity on the other. What we say is this—first of all, that the system should be placed on such a footing that it may be entirely done away with. We have no fear of the Protestants of Ulster; but if the Government will not be advised by us, then the next best thing is to disarm everybody. There was one observation which fell from the Chief Secretary just now which confirmed me in the view I entertain. The right hon. Gentleman said Members might feel satisfied that if the necessity arises this Act will be put in force. Now, there are various portions of Ulster which are not proclaimed, in which the Orangemen are openly arming themselves. Is this to be allowed until they may actually take the field? I noticed a meeting of the Grand Lodge of Armagh the other day at which the different Masters of the Orange Lodges were called upon to hand in a statement as to the number of men they could place in the field. It was stated that in 11 towns in the Northern Division of Armagh there were 750 men ready to take the field if the necessity arose. Surely, in the face of a declaration of that nature, an Arms Act of this kind should be put in force. The right hon. Gentleman admits that this Arms Act would be of very little use for the prevention of outrages, and what, therefore, is the necessity which can arise for putting the Act in force? I do not see what cause there can be, unless these men go into the open field prepared to resist Her Majesty's Forces or the police, in which case the Government would only see the danger when too late to put the Act in force in any proper spirit. If they want to prevent mischief of that character, the proper time is to disarm these men when they are getting the arms and preparing for the field, always provided that the Catholics are not disarmed while licences to carry arms are issued to Protestants. In that case it would be too late, and for this reason—One of the objects they have is to produce effect upon public opinion in England, and if they are allowed to assemble in large numbers until they can be surrounded by Her Majesty's troops and disarmed, their object of impressing the people of England with the fact that they are prepared to carry on a civil war will be achieved. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Act will be put in force should the necessity arise, we are justified in entertaining the suspicion that in special circumstances the Act may not be used in the same way it has been used before, and I certainly do not see any good reason why the Act should be renewed for two years instead of one. If the Act is used in Ireland in a fair and impartial spirit, and there are good grounds for renewing it next year, the opposition of the Irish Members will be even of a milder character than it is now. On the other hand, if the Act is unfairly enforced, or it is possible that a Conservative Government is in Office, it may be necessary that we should give it our determined opposition, and I do not see what objection the Government can have to such a course. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that pressure might be brought to bear on the authorities to carry out the Act. What is the reason why certain counties in Ulster have not been proclaimed? There may be very little agrarian outrage in Down or Antrim, but we know very well that large bodies of armed men have attended political meetings in those counties, that they have discharged revolvers in the air, and flourished their arms. I know of one case of a meeting in the county of Down, where a large body of armed men went from Belfast with the avowed intention of firing at the Nationalists. A more audacious and open violation of the law I never saw or heard of in the course of my experience. These men left Belfast with the avowed purpose of breaking up a peaceable meeting. They were 300 or 400 in number, and every man among them had a revolver in his pocket. They hunted us, led by two magistrates, and they pursued me personally with cries of "Let's have a shot at Dillon." As I say, they were led by two magistrates of the county of Down, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who afterwards became very obnoxious to the Nationalist Party, saved my life on that occasion. Two magistrates at the head of 200 armed men demanded the rights of way. Mr. Clifford Lloyd told them to stand back in the Queen's name, and it was not until that occurred that they gave way. Yet these are the men who are to set in judgment on actions of this kind in the county of Down. I venture to say that the people of North Down are no different to-day from what they were at the time to which I refer. I have no objection to the Act being enforced so long as it is enforced impartially; and if I can be assured that it will be applied impartially to all classes of the people who display a spirit of turbulence or desire to obtain the possession of arms for an improper purpose, I would be content to confine my opposition to a mere vote against the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he mentioned that in the first year of the Act from 700 to 800 warrants were issued, added that there had only been 150 con- victions. [Mr. JOHN MORLEY: Prosecutions.] It is quite evident, therefore, that the powers of the Act were only put in force for the purpose of annoyance; and, therefore, I think the shortening of the duration of the Bill becomes a matter of considerable importance. No one can pretend, after the statement made by the Chief Secretary, that the Act may not be used in such a way as to produce a most demoralizing effect upon Her Majesty's subjects. What would be thought if 750 houses were searched in England on charges of theft, and only 150 prosecutions followed? Would it not be said that the law had been put in force for an improper purpose? I confess that in listening to these debates nothing has been so disappointing to me as to notice the angry feeling which seems to be engendered by the proceedings of the Orange Party in the North of Ireland. I trust that by getting rid of the whole of this repressive legislation, we shall be able to produce a better feeling between the Protestant and Roman Catholic population in Ireland.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I will give the Committee the whole of the figures. In 1881 the number of warrants issued was 793; in 1882, 439; but in 1883 the search warrants were reduced to 37; in 1884 to 29; in 1885 to 6; and in the course of the present year there has not been one.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I shall feel it my duty to support the Amendment, and I do so on a general broad principle. I think that coercion is at all times detestable, and if there is one line which I take more than another it is that all Liberal Representatives should steadily vote against coercion. So far I have voted against this Bill, and upon the same ground I shall continue to vote for the minimization of its operation as far as possible. Apart from the considerations laid before the Committee by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and others, it seems to me almost incredible that the Government cannot see their way to acquiesce in the views and appeals which are made to them by hon. Members from Ireland. At this moment, when the Government are basing their appeal for support to their Home Rule policy on the broad principle that we should put confidence and show trust in our Irish fellow-subjects, it is only right that on a small question like this we should show our trust by confining the operation of the present Bill to one year. If we continue to display a want of trust in them, I must admit that we supply the Conservatives on the other side of the House with a very good argument against our Home Rule policy. They may very fairly retort upon us that if we show so much distrust of the Irish people in connection with an Arms Bill how can we intrust them with the far larger power of self-government proposed to be conferred upon them by the Government of Ireland Bill? There is another argument which induces me to think that one year would be sufficient for continuing the operation of this Bill, and it is that by the time that period will have elapsed I think we may take it for granted that there will be a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin, and if the Irish people then find that they require an Arms Act they will be able to pass it for themselves. I have, however, sufficient confidence in the peaceable and law-abiding principles of the people of Ireland to feel sure that there will be no necessity whatever for any such measure. I therefore intend to vote with the Irish Party and against the Government, because I am glad to take the opportunity of voting against any extension of the principle of coercion. I also entertain some doubt as to the spirit in which the Act is likely to be administered. In Ireland there are two classes of magistrates, some of whom are paid, while the rest, who form by far the largest number, are not paid. Those who are not paid have already made themselves obnoxious for the partial mode in which they have administered the Act, and we certainly cannot depend on them to administer the Act fairly and uprightly. The instances which have already been given prove conclusively to every impartial mind that justice is not to be expected from the unpaid magistracy, and under those circumstances I cannot conscientiously vote for extending beyond the barest possible limits the authority which is now given to them under the Act. I think there can be nothing more calculated to disturb our relations with Ireland, and to render nugatory that pacification which the Prime Minister is trying to bring about, than the difficulties which are likely to arise from the unfair and undue administration of a Coercion Act of this kind. I certainly fail to see the necessity of continuing the operation of the Act for more than one year; and if the Irish Members desire to have the Act extended to the whole country let it be so extended. We should then know exactly where we are; but I would never give my consent to the administration of an Act of this kind, of a character which I abominate, by persons upon whose uprightness and fairness I cannot rely for its just and faithful administration. Nor can I give my sanction to the extension of that kind of legislation for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. Upon these grounds, I would earnestly appeal to the Chief Secretary to consider if it is not possible to accede to the appeal now made to him by the Irish Members. I am certainly not going to indulge in the argument which, though used on the opposite Benches, would, coming from this side of the House, seem to be little less than an insult to hon. Gentlemen opposite—that the Irish Members have lately been so well-behaved. I think that they have always been well-behaved, so long as they have been fairly treated; but that argument having been advanced, I think we should add what small amount of influence we and our Radical Friends possess in urging upon the Chief Secretary to limit the duration of the measure to the smallest period possible.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

I would also venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to minimize the duration of the Bill as much as possible. I would suggest that the Bill should only remain in operation until the end of the Session next year, and then, if necessary before the close of next Session, there would be ample opportunity for bringing in a new Bill. If I remember rightly, it is the custom to bring in a Continuance Bill every year, which is made to include a number of Bills that are only passed for one year. The figures which, have been given by the right hon. Gentleman prove conclusively that, as a matter of fact, the Bill has almost gone out already. Last year there were only six search warrants issued, and this year, up to the present date, there has not been one. What is the real object of forcing a Bill of this kind through Parliament if it is entirely inoperative and not required? Upon that ground alone I think the suggestion I make would be a sensible way of settling the matter. Another point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—namely, the parade which is made by certain classes in the North of Ireland of their desire to obtain arms. We see constant statements of the importation of arms and their distribution among the Orangemen; but I do not believe a word of it. We are told that 11,000 rifles were sold recently at 8s. a-piece. Probably 8s. would be the real worth of the article, and I am afraid that this description of arms would be a great deal more dangerous to the persons who attempted to use them than to their opponents. At the same time, if the Arms Act is to be enforced at all, I think a good reason has been urged for shortening its duration—namely, that at the present moment the law is unfairly administered. We know that in the Orange districts the persons who are likely to have these arms belong to the artizan class; and, in the next place, we know that the magistrates who will have to adjudicate in any of the cases prosecuted under the Act are prepared to perjure themselves in the most unblushing manner, so far as their oath of office is concerned, in favour of any persons who may be brought before them, in whose religious hatred and political objects they strongly sympathize. It has almost been the universal experience that there has been a failure of the administration of justice on the part of the Tory landlords in the North of Ireland, and that they act even worse in regard to a criminal case than they would in a civil prosecution where a political opponent was brought before them. I think that the Government should take the administration of the Act into their own hands, and should insist, in the strictest manner, that if the law is put in force at all, it should be administered impartially. It is notorious that in matters connected with political or religious feeling the persons who are prosecuted are never brought up before those who would firmly administer the law. In my opinion, the Resident Magistrates ought to have the entire power in their own hands, for the simple reason that they are paid officers, and are more or less amenable to the Government of the day. I am satisfied that the Chief Secretary, even of a Tory Government, would not be so willing to act in such a partial manner as these unreasonable, unpaid magistrates. A fair illustration was given to-day of the spirit which animates these unpaid magistrates in the case of Mr. Brook, in regard to whose conduct a Question was put. There are hon. Members of this House who have been condemned to the plank-bed for using language of a much milder and less outrageous character than this man Brook. It must be remembered that this Justice of the Peace is charged with the administration of the law, and I was certainly surprised at the attempt which was made by the Chief Secretary to minimize the offence of Mr. Brook and to exaggerate the amount of apology he had made. He has also, I am sorry to say, been screened by the Lord Chancellor. If the Government would do their duty, Mr. Brook and a few more of the same class would be at once struck off the Commission of the Peace, and the people of the North of Ireland would then have some idea that it is really intended to administer the law in a spirit of impartiality. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will adopt the suggestion I have thrown out, the old custom could be resorted to, at the close of next Session, of including this Act in a Continuance Bill, and the Irish Members would then have an opportunity of offering an opinion whether or not it ought to be renewed for another year. They will be deprived of that opportunity if the Act is passed now for two years. Whatever Government may be in power next year, there ought to be an opportunity afforded to the Irish Members of discussing whether the law has been fairly and honestly administered.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I should like to point out that there is some misapprehension on the part of my hon. Friend below the Gangway on this side of the House (Mr. Conybeare) as to the persons by whom this Act is to be administered. My hon. Friend said that it is at present administered by the unpaid magistracy. That is not the case. The granting of licences is not intrusted to the unpaid magistrates at all; but it is universally reserved to some high officer of the Constabulary Force, or to the Resident Magistrate. The unpaid magistrates have no power either to grant or refuse or revoke a licence to carry arms. Sub-section 4 of Clause 4 of the Act does give a certain amount of power to the ordinary Justices of the Peace; but that sub-section I propose, with the assent of the Committee, not to continue. As to the date of the duration of the Act, two years is, in my opinion, a very reasonable time. At the same time, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), I admit that the fact of the Act expiring on the 1st of June has been found from experience, and is proved by what is taking place at this moment, to be a rather inconvenient period; and, therefore, upon reflection, I am prepared to assent to this arrangement—that the Act should be continued, not for two years, but until the 31st of December, 1887. That is the proposal I am prepared to make.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has just stated, that these licences are granted by the Resident Magistrates; but I wish to point out that it is the ordinary magistrates who have to try persons for breaking the law, and who, it is notorious, will not convict in the case of an Orangeman charged with an offence under the Act. What is the use of placing in the hands of the Resident Magistrates the power of saying to anybody in the county—"You shall not carry arms," when if such person breaks the law he is brought up for trial, not before the magistrate who has the power to give or deny authority to carry arms, but before an unpaid magistrate, who will refuse to convict him? If you require the trial for carrying arms to take place before the Resident Magistrate also, no doubt justice would be done. What is the case now? In Ulster you have Resident Magistrates to whom all applications for carrying arms must be made. If a licence is refused, the man carries arms all the same. If he is prosecuted for breaking the law, he is brought up for trial before those whom he knows from experience, and whom both the present Chief Secretary and the late Chief Secretary have more than once admitted, will not convict. Under these circumstances, with an Orange conspiracy going on throughout the whole of Ulster, your Act becomes a mere dead letter, while in the law-abiding parts of the country it is carried out to the full spirit. I altogether fail to understand why the Act should be renewed for two years. The Amendment is to continue it in operation for one year only, and I think that period is amply sufficient. The whole cry about an Orange rebellion is mere bunkum, and I cannot understand how any man of common sense can attach the slightest importance to it. Probably the Government may have been influenced to some extent by what these Orange Gentlemen may have declared, both in and out of this House; but if they will fairly investigate the matter, they cannot fail to see how ridiculous the whole thing is. All these cries are got up for the purpose of producing a false feeling of alarm. The other day we were told by an hon. Member of this House—a Grand Master, or some other kind of Master, of an Orange Lodge—that Lord Wolseley and the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) had both declared that if the Government of Ireland Bill passed, they would resign their commissions and take the field at the head of an Orange Army. Both of these noble and gallant Lords have publicly given the lie to that statement; but, nevertheless, the effect which such kind of statements is intended to produce continues to be propagated. The Orangemen still stick to the threat, although the lie direct has been given to it by Lord Wolseley and the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone. Only last week a further statement appeared in The Belfast News Letter. It contained a piece of information, which, of course, nobody believed, that, in addition to an Orange Army which is to march upon Dublin, a second Army was to garrison the strong places in Ulster, and there was to be a third Army employed as an Army of Observation. This statement was, of course, copied into the English newspapers. I hardly know where the Army of Observation is to be employed—probably on the banks of the Shannon, which are overflowed for nine months in the year, One of the leaders of this great Army is a learned friend of mine, a barrister like myself, who sits with me at table in the same mess in the Middle Temple Hall; he is an officer neither of Militia nor Volunteers, and he has never even acquired the rank of an efficient in the Reserves. Take another distinguished leader—the hon. and gallant Major—who is a Member of this House (Major Saunderson). He is, I believe, in the Militia, and was for a short time in the Army; but neither in the one Service nor the other did he ever hear a shot fired in earnest. These are the Armies and these the leaders who are to march upon Dublin, are to garrison the strong places in Ulster, standing up to their knees in the mud of the Shannon, are to act as an Army of Observation, and to give battle to Her Majesty's Forces. I trust they will be able to realize how in Ireland we laugh at this kind of stuff—mere bunkum and twaddle—which the Orangemen attempt to cram down the throats of the British public year after year, but which has had the effect of bringing us under the influence of Coercion Acts. I recollect the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket)—a barrister like myself—declaring at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Act that he was prepared to seal his opposition to the measure in his blood. Nonsense like this has been crammed down our throats year after year, and the consequence has been Coercion Bills. If hon. Members will only look at the matter from a common-sense point of view, they must see that an Arms Act is of no use in Ulster so long as it is left in the power of the Orange magistrates to carry it out. If it were impartially administered in Ulster, not 14 days would elapse before a fine was imposed upon the three leaders of the mighty Orange Armies of Ulster by whom we are threatened. Personally, I should not care if there were 2C Arms Acts in the country; on the contrary, I think that those who do not know how to use arms properly ought to be deprived of them; but I think it a national insult to impose exceptional legislation of this character upon the people of Ireland; and it is all the more painful because it is forced upon us in consequence of the action of the three leaders of these bunkum Armies. The whole of this feeling will not live for three weeks after the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill. In the case of the Act for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church it lasted only three weeks. These periodical outbursts of insanity in Ulster are very much like the attacks of intermittent fever; it is their stock-in-trade, and their only stock-in-trade. If I had any certainty that you were going to carry out this Act properly in Ulster, or in the whole of Ireland, I should have no very strong objection to it; but what I do think is, that in putting on this extra year the Government are making it a greater insult to us. I would, therefore, ask the Chief Secretary if it is not possible to limit it to one year, or even to a shorter period, and not keep it longer, as a kind of favour to these insane Gentlemen of the Province of Ulster?

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary intended to meet us half-way by proposing that the Act should only remain in force until the end of 1887. But that is scarcely-half-way. The matter will have to be dealt with towards the end of 1887—before the close of the year—and, therefore, I think we should gain as much by allowing the Act to last to the end of the Session as to the end of the year. Suppose the consideration of the possible renewal of the Act occupied the last day of next Session, and that we sat until the end of September. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to give his special attention to this point, because none of us in this quarter of the House wish that this discussion should be at all protracted. If he will say he would be satisfied that the Act should only remain in operation until the end of the Session of 1887, or until, say, the 1st of September, I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Chance) would be prepared to accept the compromise—anything short of that would be of no practical good. With regard to the operation of the Act, no doubt the point as to the punishment for breaches of the law is far more important than the question of licensing, therefore I desire to press on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of stopping the discussion upon this question by limiting the operation of the Act, if not for quite one year, to the end of the Session of 1887, or to a month beyond. I do not wish to detain the Committee, or to urge arguments which have been urged with force by every speaker on these Benches; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that I have not only no sympathy with the carrying of arms by Orangemen, or by any other class of the people, but that I would rather there was an Arms Act, if it were worked so as to prevent any people carrying arms for the purpose of committing outrage. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to bring this discussion to a close by consenting to limit the operation of the Act to the end of next Session.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I do not propose to trouble the Committee for more than a moment or two; indeed, there are only two points to which I wish to address myself. I understand the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) to suggest that the Act should only remain in operation until the end of the next Session of Parliament; and I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to practically adopt the suggestion. The end of the Session being an uncertain time, and it being impossible to put such words into an Act, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would take it for the 31st of December, 1887, so that, if it had to be renewed, it would, as a matter of course, have to be renewed some time before the Session expired. And the hon. Member for South Monaghan (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) suggests that the Act should only remain in force till the end of the Session, or a month after. I think it is hardly necessary to persist in a discussion simply on a question of a day or two. I trust the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) will withdraw his Amendment, and accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I think there is substantial objection, although I do not quite see how the matter can be remedied at the moment, to the administration of this Act by others than Resident Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, by an Amendment which he has suggested, takes away from the mere Justices of the Peace the power they had of arming their own friends despite the Resident Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, however, only deprives the Justices of the Peace of the right to give certificates of fitness to possess arms. If it were possible—I do not know whether it is possible in a Continuing Act—by some simple words to confine also to Resident Magistrates the power of adjudicating upon offences under this Act, the spirit of the modifications which have already been initiated by the Government would be carried out to the end. If it be possible to make this alteration, I venture to appeal to the Chief Secretary to bring it about.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The modification suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will be proposed by one of my Colleagues on a section which will come up for discussion subsequently. I think the compromise which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has offered to us is a very fair one; and, therefore, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw my Amendment, and move to insert the words "thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight," and insert the words "thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven."—(Mr. Chance.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

Mr. Courtney, the Amendment I have to propose refers to the issuing of licences, and its effect will be, practically, to cancel every existing licence, and to render necessary the issuing, under this Act, of new licences. In my opinion, the Amendment is a necessary corollary to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has himself put upon the Paper, and I will briefly state the reasons why. The Committee is aware there has been frequent reference to the fact that the existing Act which this Bill is to renew contains a provision that the Licensing Authority is bound to issue a licence to any occupier of agricultural land, if two local magistrates certify he is a fit and proper person to have a licence given to him. This provision is to be found in Sub-section 4 of the original Act, and the point is that the Licensing Authority had no option whatever left in its hands when once a certificate was asked. Now, Sir, we complain that, under this sub-section, licences were issued wholesale to persons who ought not to have had them. We complain that, all over the North of Ireland, local Orange magistrates made use of this provision to place arms in the hands of their friends and partizans. We complain, Sir, that the effect of that was the scenes which were witnessed at a great many of the political meetings which have been held during the past two months throughout the whole of the North of Ireland. Large bodies of armed men came to those meetings. The men did not merely carry the weapons, but they used them for the purpose of giving emphasis to the political opinions which they met to demonstrate. I say, further, that practically the Government have admitted the justice of our complaints by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given Notice of an Amendment taking the power out of the hands of the local Justices, and leaving the issuing of the licences solely in the hands of the responsible Licensing Authority. What I wish to impress on the Committee and on the right hon. Gentleman is that the concession he suggests will be perfectly illusory unless it is made operative by such an Amendment as I now propose, because our case is that, under the existing law, every person in the North of Ireland whom the Orange magistrates thought it right to give arms to has already got arms. The right hon. Gentleman's concession will be perfectly illusory if the arms are left in the hands of the people who so improperly obtained them. In order to give practical effect to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and to undo the evil work which has, admittedly, been done under Sub-section 4 of the original Act, whereby the Orange magistrates armed all their friends and partizans, it is absolutely necessary that some re-inquiry should take place into those cases in which licences already exist. It may be said, in reply to me, that the Lord Lieutenant has already the power to revoke any licences improperly issued; but I maintain that a power of that kind is a practically useless power, because for its exercise it is necessary that a distinct Proclamation shall be issued in every individual case, which Proclamation is to be published in The Dublin Gazette, or otherwise promulgated as Proclamations usually are. It would be most invidious to issue these Proclamations. Direct attention would be drawn to each individual in respect of whom the licence was revoked, and obstacles would be placed in the path of the inquiry, which I say is absolutely necessary in cases in which magistrates have already issued licences under the existing Act. I respectfully press upon the Government the necessity of accepting this Amendment. There can be no question that the existing law has been grossly abused by the issue, wholesale, of revolvers to the Orangemen of the North, and to the other partizans of the Tory Party. The men of whom I speak are fully armed, armed to the last man, and they display the fact most ostentatiously on every possible occasion; they do so by coming armed to their political meetings, and by using their arms to making the holding of political meetings disagreeable to their political opponents.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "and licence."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I presume that the object of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment is to secure a revocation of all existing licences, to be followed, as far as is thought necessary, by the issue of other licences. That is a very great innovation on the spirit and scope of the Bill. Upon the question of revocation I may say that the Lord Lieutenant has already power, under the 2nd section of the Act, of setting forth by Proclamation the conditions and regulations under which the carrying of arms is authorized; and he does, in his Proclamations, take power of revocation to himself. Therefore, there is without this Amendment power, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit, to revoke all licences now in existence. The hon. Gentleman wishes, as I understand him, that power to be transferred from the Lord Lieutenant to the Licensing Authority.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

My Amendment would have this effect—that the expiry of the existing Act on the 1st of June and the passing of this Act would cancel all existing licences.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

That is a very drastic and far-reaching Amendment, involving as it does, of necessity, a complete re-issue of licences. I understood from the speech of the hon. Member that the object of himself and Friends is to secure for the Licensing Authority the power of revocation. I cannot for a moment accept such an Amendment; it will lead to a break up of all existing arrangements, and necessitate a complete reconsideration of those arrangements. It must not be supposed that it is intended the Act shall apply to one particular part of Ireland only. The object of the Act is to prevent the aggravation of political feeling, which usually runs high in Ireland, and which, for some time, is likely to run even higher than hitherto by the practice of carrying arms. That being the case, and the view and object for which the Act is framed, it is impossible that we can consent to let go by one single Amendment the whole existing set of arrangements. I must offer a resolute resistance to the Amendment.

MR. HOLMES (Dublin University)

It seems to me that the Amendment now before the House is one of a very extraordinary character. The Act now in existence is one which goes on the general understanding that the people of Ireland are entitled to bear arms; but that, under certain circumstances, restrictions may be imposed on them under Proclamation issued by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. The present measure is a renewal Bill, and it provides that when the Act is passed the various Proclamations now in force, placing restrictions on various parts of the country, shall continue in force, so as to prevent the necessity of issuing new Proclamations. And as a natural and perfectly logical consequence, when you continue the Proclamations in this way, you should also continue the exceptions that have been granted in the shape of licences for the carrying of arms. I can understand hon. Gentlemen pleading against coercion contending that there ought to be new Proclamations and orders under a new Act; but I cannot understand why, if they are to allow the Proclamations in existence to continue, they should say that it shall be necessary for each person who, up to the present time, has shown himself a proper person to obtain a licence to go through the form and ceremony of obtaining another. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that this proposal should come from a quarter of the House which generally protests so vehemently against encroachments upon the liberty of the subject in Ireland. We must remember that in the cases where persons in Ireland hold licences under the old Act the power of the Lord Lieutenant to revoke those licences will still continue; so that if a man who 12 months ago was entitled to carry arms has subsequently by his conduct deprived himself of that right, there will be no difficulty in revoking the licence. I trust the Committee will concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the reasonable view he has expressed, and that he will retain the clause, which seems to be based on reason, as it stands.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down can have heard the reasons by which I ventured to support the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it would be unreasonable that persons already having licences should be put to the trouble of coming up once more, and submitting to a new inquiry as to the propriety of licences being given to them. But I will give a reason for that course, and, I think, a very good reason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not think that a reason exists; but I can assure him that there is perfectly good ground and justification for the course I wish to see taken. We allege that, under the existing law, licences have been improperly given through the medium of the local Justices, who have had the power of issuing the certificates on which the Resident Magistrates have had no option left to them but to give the licences. We may be right, or we may be wrong, in taking that view. If we are right that licences were improperly issued, and we are sustained in that view, and the Government propose not to renew the clause, but to let it drop, declaring that it has been abused, there is ample justification for the line we are pursuing. If we are wrong there can be very little hardship in our proposal. Seeing that this Act is a renewal Act, there should be renewed inquiry into the desirability of granting licences in particular cases. The only objection the right hon. Gentleman has raised to our proposal is the Departmental objection that it would involve a great deal of trouble—that the Resident Magistrates would be put to the trouble of a fresh inquiry in each case, which would involve great difficulty and labour. That is so, no doubt; but the question is, is there a reasonable ground, or is there not, for the course that we have taken. Is not the power given to the local magistrates under the existing Act abused? If it is, I assert that there is no possible way of preventing its continuance except by the course I suggest—namely, by providing that the licences granted under the existing law shall not continue under this Act; but that, on the passing of this Act, a fresh inquiry shall take place.

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

I believe the Amendment of the hon. Member is a proper one, and one that ought not to be rejected by this House. With regard to farmers and people of that class who require to have a gun or firearm of some sort, as a necessity, on their holdings, of course nothing can be said. The Amendment of my hon. Friend does not apply to them—it does not in any way relate to those whose positions make it necessary for them to have firearms. Of course, the farmers want to shoot rooks for the protection of their crops, and it is necessary that they should have firearms. But this clause does not aim at depriving farmers of firearms that are simply required for the shooting of birds. It is intended to prevent the arming of the people of Ireland. Under the old system the Licensing Authority had no option but to grant licences where two magistrates gave a certificate, and those licences might be for rifles such as were advertised for sale in Ireland a few weeks ago, or for revolvers. Whatever the licence might have been for, if two magistrates certified a person as fit, however unfit he might have been in reality, he would be looked upon as a proper person to be armed. I do not see what injustice can be inflicted in any body by having their licences revoked in the manner proposed. I myself hold a licence to carry firearms, and should be perfectly willing to put it in the fire and take my chance of either obtaining a renewal of it, or yielding up whatever firearms I may possess. I think every well-intentioned person would do the same thing. Under this Amendment licences will be revoked; but it will be possible for the persons losing them to obtain them again by giving such guarantees of their future behaviour as will satisfy the Licensing Authority that they will make no injudicious, rash, or foolhardy use of the firearms they may possess. No one can be inconvenienced by the course we propose. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted, when a Proclamation is issued every subject of Her Majesty in the specified district will have to give up all the firearms he possesses. The privilege of carrying arms is not, after all, such an enviable one. You cause no inconvenience to us when you say—"You shall not carry arms;" and we ought to be able to say the same of the people of the North of Ireland. Whether we wish to carry firearms or not, there is no Member of the House on this side below the Gangway, and there are none of my constituents who will find themselves in the smallest degree inconvenienced, or consider that an injustice is put on them, if it becomes a necessity to have a new licence given, and to have all existing licences cancelled.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I attach great importance to this Amendment, as I believe it bears on a large portion of the case. It will bear upon all the individuals who are to be the component parts of the three armies we heard about a while ago—the army of observation, the army of occupation, and the army of invasion. The Amendment has for its object the revocation of all licences already granted, and before they can be renewed the circumstances under which they are applied for and the objects of those who ask for them will have to be inquired into. The men whose licences would be inquired into would be those who have been recently taught lessons of a Constitutional character. They have been lectured at home; they have been lectured abroad; and they have had some admirable lessons delivered to them by the noble Lord who sits on the Front Bench above the Gangway (Lord Randolph Churchill). The right of insurrection and rebellion has been defined to them by the noble Lord; and this, together with speeches from other Members who sit above the Gangway, quotations from which we have listened to, will convey lessons to the people, who will all put their individual construction upon these lessons. The noble Lord, in a speech he delivered not long ago, quoted something in reference to Robespierre, who had a Constitution of his own based upon the right of insurrection. But what was the result of it? Every Frenchman at that time thought he had a right to construct it in his own fashion, and they had conspiracy after conspiracy, beside which the pronouncement of the three tailors of Tooley Street could not stand for a moment. The noble Lord has given to the Orangemen of the North of Ireland an interpretation as to their right to a Constitution based upon rebellion; but there are other interpretations, and the men who have the right to carry arms will interpret these Constitutional maxims by private interpretation. The Amendment is devised with the object of limiting the possession of arms so far as these dangerous men are concerned—who, according to the statement we heard a short time ago, have actually enlisted to the number of 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 men. I think the House will do well to limit the issue of licences so far as these persons are concerned, who have enrolled themselves in the army of occupation. I met a young man, a friend of mine, in Cork the other day—agent for some very important properties—and we fell to discussing the present situation. I asked him what he and his friends were going to do, and he replied—"Why, take the field! But," said he, "I do not think we shall interfere with you, because you are a good sort of fellow." Thereupon I said—"I am very sorry for you, for the situation will be reversed. I have been going to take the field for 20 years, but have not succeeded yet. If you took the field we should go and stand on the ditch; and as I should not like to have the satisfaction of seeing our troops—our Imperial troops for which we are going to pay a certain sum each year—shoot you down, I am going to exercise my privilege as a Member of Parliament to prevent this occurrence. I shall exercise my rights and privileges in order to prevent your taking the field, because you are a very good fellow, and I do not want to see you shot down." If you accept this Amendment it will put the power in the hands of the magistrates. If in the North of Ireland you have proper magistrates it will give them power to inquire into these licences, and, above all, to revoke the licences of the men whom you would suppose to be the recruits of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I urge the Committee to consider these as good and sound reasons for accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy).

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

It is a rather remarkable fact that we have had very few statistics produced in relation to the working of the Arms Act. We have now got into Committee, and still none are produced. I certainly must say I appreciate the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) in not producing them, because they would have proved very troublesome indeed. Accurate statistics in reference to the operation of the existing Arms Act would have shown conclusively that licences for revolvers and rifles have been issued wholesale in the North of Ireland, especially in Fermanagh and Derry, and the Government would have been in the position of coming to Parliament for a Bill enabling them to put down armed assemblies; and yet one of the principal clauses in that very Bill would promise not to interfere with any of the arms now possessed by the Orangemen of Ireland, against whom it is understood the renewal of the Act is chiefly directed. I cannot see that any great difficulty would arise from the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and for this reason—that the licences which have been issued in the North of Ireland are mainly licences for revolvers and rifles; and I should think that the Licensing Authorities, if they were Resident Magistrates, as I hope they will be, would deal with the application for such licences in a very summary manner indeed. I would not have the slightest objection to give to every Orangeman in the North of Ireland a fowling piece if he wanted it. A fowling piece is not wanted for purposes of war, inasmuch as it hardly carries 50 yards. But I have a great objection to allowing the Orangemen of the North to buy Sniders and revolvers, which cannot be of any use for legitimate or lawful purposes; and I think the Government are acting in a very curious manner in bringing in this Bill, which is said to be directed against armed assemblies, but which contains a clause which absolutely ties their hands. It has been pointed out to the Committee that the Lord Lieutenant has the power of revoking licences. I know he has, and the power has been exercised dozens of times in the case of individuals. I do not think its exercise in the case of a county or divi- sion would be dreamt of. There is another point to which the Committee has hardly given proper attention, and it is this—that the old Peace Preservation Act has not expired yet, and that the Orangemen of the North, having had a number of counties conveniently proclaimed for them, have had, for the last five or six months, in their hands the power, on the certificate of any two Orange magistrates, to insist upon having licences for revolvers, or rifles, or cannons for the matter of that. I venture to say that, even at the present moment, the Orange magistrates are very busily engaged in granting certificates to every anti-Nationalist in the proclaimed districts of the North, in order that these gentlemen may be provided with two-year licences. What sort of men are these by whom licences have been granted? There is a Return now in the House of Commons which was granted at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), from which it will be found that about 70 per cent of the magistrates are landlords and land agents, and that the rest are officials who have been more or less intimately connected with the mis-government of Ireland for the last 80 years. In addition to that, they are, to a man, non-Catholic, and yet it is solemnly proposed to renew an Act practically containing a provision that the Orangemen are not to be touched; if the Act is to operate at all it is to operate against unarmed Catholics. I hope some Members on the Radical Benches will support us in our protest against this clause, a protest which it is most necessary to make even upon the showing of the Government. We must press the Amendment to a division, and if we are beaten in the division we shall have much pleasure in proposing the omission of the sub-section.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I have already spoken on the subject now under discussion; but since I spoke speeches have been made from different quarters of the House, to which I have listened most attentively. Having done so, I cannot help feeling how utterly ridiculous it is that the idea should be entertained, as it apparently is, that this Arms Bill is vitally necessary for the purpose of preventing civil war in Ulster. If the Government have got that idea in their heads in bringing in this Arms Bill, they might just as well drop it and go on with something sensible. The idea of civil war breaking out in Ulster is perfectly absurd. I represent a constituency in which fully one-half of the population are Orangemen. For 300 years back Orangemen have had the ascendancy in this part of Ireland; but I can say conscientiously, judging from my experience during the late Election, that there is no likelihood whatever of any open hostility by Orangemen to the march of the National cause.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that this is an Amendment to omit the words "and licence."

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I am going to come to that, Mr. Courtney. I am going to show that the Bill is altogether unnecessary, and that if we are to have it at all the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Healy) is a very desirable one. The Amendment is intended to secure that the present licences shall be reconsidered; because it is quite true that a great many licences that have been granted and are now in existence could be advantageously reconsidered. But, after all, the question whiih the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Committee should take into consideration is this—if the Bill is brought in for the purpose of stopping the arming of certain people in Ulster, it must do something more than it does at present. It is notorious that the Orangemen have arms, and that the great bulk of them have arms without any licence whatever. If you want this Bill for the purpose of disarming the Orangemen you must make some provision for the searching of the men's residences, in the same way as the Government did not scruple to allow the residences of Nationalists to be searched in the past. I think the Amendment is a very desirable one; but I do not think that it can possibly be too clearly or distinctly impressed upon the Committee that there is not the slightest chance of anything in the shape of civil war in Ireland.

MR. BARRY (Wexford, S.)

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Healy) is of a far-reaching character, amounting, as it practically does, to a revocation of all existing licences upon the expiration of the present Act. I am further of opinion that, unless the very strongest reasons can be brought forward in support of the Amendment, it should not be entertained. I maintain that we have submitted a most overwhelming case in favour of the Amendment. It has been shown that, under the existing Act, licences have been granted in the North of Ireland to any Orangeman who applied, and that the arms have been improperly used. We have it on the testimony of a former Chief Secretary that, after an ordinary public meeting, sacks full of revolvers were collected. We have instances in the North of Ireland of extensive firing, and we know that in some cases the effects were very serious. But there is a stronger reason than any of these why the Government should accept this Amendment, and that is that they have practically admitted that the Act was badly administered. If the Act was administered impartially, and if no licences were issued to doubtful characters, there is no reason, no justification for the proposal of the Government to drop Sub-section 4. In supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) I wish to say that, so far as the Provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught are concerned, there would have been no proposal to renew the Arms Act at all. The proposal is made on account of the peculiar conditions existing to-day in Ulster. But does not the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) know that, unless this Amendment of my hon. Friend, or some Amendment very similar in character, is adopted, the Bill will be practically a dead letter? It is all very well to say that the Lord Lieutenant possesses the power to revoke licences; but the Lord Lieutenant only exercises that power on the representation of the magistrates. Is it at all likely that the Orange magistrates who granted the licences, and granted them for a special purpose, will make any representation to the Lord Lieutenant? I do not regard it at all as any safeguard to the Catholic population of the North of Ireland to say that the Lord Lieutenant possesses the power to revoke licences; and I hope that, after a full consideration of the case, the right hon. Gentleman will concede this Amendment. The only reason offered against it has been this—that it would involve the officials in a great deal of trouble, and involve a considerable waste of time. Are the people who deserve to have licences not to have them, and those who do not deserve them to have them, because the officials will be involved in a great deal of work? Surely that is no reason at all why a grave public danger—and it is a grave public danger—should be allowed. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary insists in maintaining his opposition we shall have some stronger and more reasonable argument than that he has advanced as to the work which would be entailed on the officials by the carrying of the Amendment.

MR. E. RIDER COOK (West Ham, N.)

I do not rise, Mr. Courtney, to take part in the discussion upon the Amendment before the Committee, but to call attention to the abominable atmosphere in which we are sitting. It seems to me that the air of this House is not only disagreeable, but that we are really sitting here at the risk of our lives. Unless something can be done, and that immediately, to remedy the evil, we ought, out of respect for ourselves and respect for our wives and children, to report Progress, and adjourn the House until such time as we can have an atmosphere in which it is proper for us to sit. I beg to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. E. Rider Cook.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR, IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I myself have not experienced any ill effects from the state of the atmosphere. I hope the Committee will continue its labours in spite of what strikes me as a somewhat imaginary grievance.

MR. COOTE (Huntingdon, S.)

We are not all privileged to sit upon the Front Ministerial Bench. Though it may be true that right hon. Gentlemen do not find any occasion to complain of the state of the atmosphere, we who sit below the Gangway do experience very serious inconvenience. I hope something will be done speedily to improve the atmosphere of the House.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR) (Leeds, S.)

As I was a Member of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into the nature of these smells, I must say that the smells have become very much worse this year than they were last. But I do not see the advantage of reporting Progress, or of adjourning the House for a single night. I do not think there is much chance of an improvement being made till a sum not less than £10,000 has been spent on the drainage system and other points connected with the sanitation of the House. What is required is a thorough overhauling of the whole system of sewering; and, therefore, the mere reporting Progress for a single night will be of no use at all; if we adjourned till the work of improvement was completed we should have to adjourn for some months.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)

I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken because he is an authority on these matters. I have personally made very great inquiry into the matter. I have consulted the people who clean out the House, and they tell me that in the morning the smell is abominable. Something ought to be done at once. The Gentlemen who sit on the Front Ministerial Bench ought to take the subject into consideration and see that immediate steps are taken. It is not right that we should have to come down here night after night and sit in an atmosphere like this. The atmosphere of the House is worse now than it has ever been since I first entered Parliament. It is absolutely necessary something should be done, and done at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir Lyon Playfair) said the work of improvement will cost £10,000. It may cost £10,000 or £20,000. Surely the Commons of England ought to have a proper place in which to meet. It matters not whether the work costs £10,000 or £20,000—it must be done. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ham (Mr. Rider Cook) has done good service in calling attention to this matter, and I trust it will receive that consideration which its importance deserves.

DR. FOSTER (Chester)

I rise to confirm the remarks made by the Mover of the Motion to report Progress, and also to say I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir Lyon Playfair) that to report Progress for a single night would have no effect upon the exceedingly deleterious atmosphere we are condemned to breathe. I entered the Aye Lobby a short time ago, and discovered a smell which was positively dangerous to health. I found the smell in the Central Lobby, and I was obliged, in order to get rid of it, to take refuge in the Smoke Room. I hope the Government will give their serious attention to this matter, whether it costs £10,000 or £20,000. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) has said, it is their urgent duty to take steps to get rid of this dangerous atmosphere in the House. It is impossible for men to be healthy when they are condemned to breathe these noxious vapours. Many Members have headaches continually in consequence of the prevalence of this unpleasant atmosphere; and, therefore, it is not to be expected that they can come with clear ideas to the discharge of their functions. I hope the Government will give their earnest attention to the question, and that if the Motion to report Progress is not pressed to a division it will, nevertheless, bear fruit.

SIR HENRY ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)

Perhaps, as Chairman of the Select Committee to which this question has been referred, I may be permitted to make one or two remarks. We have thoroughly investigated the whole drainage system of the House and precincts. We find there is a great deal to be done in order to place the whole of the drainage of the House in a proper sanitary condition. The work, however, cannot be done at once. Perhaps it is within the knowledge of the Committee that we have already taken steps effectually to ventilate the large sewer which runs from one end of the building to the other; and so far, I think, we have succeeded in removing one very considerable source of danger and discomfort. There are a great many other points which require attending to, and I can only say the Select Committee are fully aware of the very great importance of this matter. Only this very day we have completed our Report, which we hope to lay on the Table of the House on Monday at the latest. With regard to the smells complained of—and I be- lieve fairly complained of, though unfortunately I have been away and unable to smell them—I have to say we are endeavouring to do what we possibly can, and I trust that the measures we propose will effectually stop the nuisance. What has been the extent of it to-day I have not had the advantage of judging. I propose to go round now, but in the absence of the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacs) I do not propose to go down the sewer this evening. I do not think, however, that the smell is sufficiently strong to prevent the Business of the House being proceeded with.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

As we are now considering the important subject of the sanitary condition of the House, I take the opportunity of drawing attention to one matter which never seems to have been noticed. There are about the House a great many sewers; but I think the hon. Gentle man the Member for Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe) will find that one of the sources of offence and injury to health is something which is above the sewers—namely, the matting on the floor of the House. When there is a large number of Gentlemen tramping in and out, and you happen to get a glimpse of the floor in the right light, you find that there is——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Motion to report Progress.

MR. MOLLOY

I am giving one reason for reporting Progress. I was about to say that in certain lights a cloud of dust may be seen rising from the matting. If anyone will take the trouble to examine the arrangements of the House, they will find that underneath the matting there is absolutely a trap for catching all the dirt and soil which attaches to our shoes after leaving the streets. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Roscoe) will also turn his attention to the condition of the matting in the House, I am sure he will do well.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)

I think that after what has been said the wisest thing to do is to make the discussion upon the Bill as brief as possible. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen to be brief in their remarks, and to let us adjourn without much further delay.

MR. E. RIDER COOK (West Ham, N.)

I do not, of course, wish to em- barrass the arrangements of the Government in any way. I am ignorant of their arrangements; but I felt it only right to call the attention of the Committee to the atmosphere in which we are sitting. Having done so, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Motion, and leave the responsibility of dealing with the matter in the hands of the Government.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the words 'and licence' stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. J. GILL (Limerick)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said that the principal object of this Bill is to prevent large bodies of men bringing weapons to meetings and elections, and the like. We who sit upon these Benches would be very glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman what provisions there are in the present Bill to prevent these weapons being brought to meetings, and markets, and fairs? This is only a continuance of the existing Act; and, as far as we have been able to gather, weapons have been brought to these places, and we believe that the reason of the weapons being so brought is that numbers of persons who have no right to have licences have them. In what way in the new Bill, which is a continuance of the present Act, will that very dangerous state of things be remedied. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman would ex plain that to us briefly——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee, which is that the words "and licence" be omitted from the clause.

MR. H. J. GILL

I beg your pardon, Mr. Courtney. I was about to show that the Amendment should be passed, because its principal object is to prevent people from having the arms to bring to public gatherings. As others have said, we are not in the slightest degree afraid of civil war. We are only desirous of preserving the peace of the country; and I think if the right hon. Gentleman would explain to us in what way the present Bill will prevent the carrying of arms to meetings and other places my hon. Friend will scarcely press his Amendment to a division. I think that would satisfy, to a very great extent, the fears we have. We believe that weapons have been given to a great number of persons who have no right whatever to have them; we believe the weapons are still in their hands, and that the same danger will accrue in the future as in the past by their being carried. We would like to know what means there are in this Bill to make any change in this matter, and why, if weapons were carried in the past, they cannot be carried in the future?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I would point out to the hon. Member that much would depend on the spirit in which the Act is administered. The question must, therefore, be left to those who have to administer it. I have no doubt that that spirit will be a fair one, although I cannot, of course, expect the hon. Member to take my word or assurance on that point.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think that we might arrive at a compromise on this subject by excluding fowling pieces, because these are used by farmers for necessary purposes on their farms. I do not know whether it would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman if we were to allow the words "and licence" to stand, allowing people who have licences for fowling pieces to retain them, and refusing licences to those only who carry six-chamber revolvers. As the Act stands at present, any two magistrates will have the power to compel a licence to be granted to farmers for arms. They can have a licence to carry arms, and we find that the term "arms" includes cannons, guns, pistols, and so forth. I am sure that the power under the section will be exercised in an unfair and Party spirit by some of the people concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this suggestion, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will withdraw the present Amendment.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) that cannon and so forth might be had or carried under the licence, of course, if we knew of any person in the North of Ireland or elsewhere having a battery of artillery the Lord Lieutenant would revoke his licence the very next day. The Amendment of the hon. Member would cause no small amount of trouble, and give rise to a great deal of bad feeling, because these licences have al- ready been granted, and it is a much more serious thing to revoke a licence than it is to refuse to issue one, because the revocation affixes a stigma on the character of the person holding it. I must, therefore, decline to accept either the Amendment, or the compromise which hon. Gentlemen have proposed.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

With regard to my Amendment and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I say that his argument that it is a stronger thing to revoke than to grant a licence shows the value of the right hon. Gentleman's previous reference to the Lord Lieutenant's general power of revocation as a sufficient prevention of abuse. We want to see the right hon. Gentleman make some concession in the direction of the Amendment by limiting the facilities for carrying revolvers. At any rate, we say that there should be some revision of existing licences. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to give an undertaking of this kind I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

The Government have felt the necessity of taking power generally to revoke licences by Proclamation. We have felt also the necessity of considering to what extent the possession of arms prevails in different districts in Ireland; and if we find that there is a dangerous excess of persons in the possession of arms, a general revocation will issue of all licences in the district where the excess exists.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I am clearly of opinion that there is no power of general revocation; and it is for that reason, and to meet the difficulty which is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, that I propose a compromise which would confine the Amendment of my hon. Friend to warlike weapons.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

In asking leave to withdraw this Amendment. I beg to say that I shall move an Amendment giving the Government the power which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after the word "licence," to insert the words "for fowling pieces and ammunition."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I have already given my reasons against the acceptance of this Amendment, and I cannot re-open the question.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend on Report, if necessary, to take power for thy general revocation of licences in any part of Ireland?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I am advised that we have the power to revoke licences generally by the 2nd section of the Act as it now stands.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I have to move that Subsection 4 of Section 4 of the Act be not continued, and I shall not use more than two or three words in supporting the Amendment I propose. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have stated fairly enough their objection to this section, and I may remark, from an administrative point of view, there are objections equally strong; it is, therefore, in order to strengthen the Act that I propose this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, after the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight," to add the words "save that Sub-section (4) of Section of the said Act shall not be continued."—(Mr. John Morley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I propose to insert, after "Section four" in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the words "and Section five." The Court that tries cases of offence against the Act is composed of one Resident Magistrate and as many ex officio members as can possibly be obtained. Now, the result has been that the unpaid magistrates have often acquitted men whom the Resident Magistrate considered ought to have been convicted. We have had a number of examples of that brought forward in this House; and, Sir, we propose by a new clause to confine the power of trying these cases to a Court composed of two Resident Magistrates, thereby depriving these Orange partizans throughout the North of Ireland of the power to acquit guilty and convict innocent men which they have hitherto very largely exercised.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment to insert, after the words "of Section four," the words "and Section five."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I would point out to the hon. Member that the effect of striking out Section 5 of the Act would be also to remove the penalties provided by the Act.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

We have already had an Amendment upon the Table of the House to take the place of Section 5 of the Act, by which the penalty is reduced to a month's imprisonment, or a fine of £20, and it is provided that the Court is to consist of one Resident Magistrate at least.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

The Act says that the Court shall consist of two or more Justices of the Peace sitting in Petty Sessions, of whom one shall be a Resident Magistrate, or of one Resident Magistrate sitting alone in Petty Sessions. I cannot assent to the withdrwal of the 5th section of the Act—first, on the general ground that it would be reopening the Act; and, secondly, because I do not believe that during the time the Act has been in operation there have been any complaints made as to the magnitude of the penalties provided for.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I am not in a position to say, of my own knowledge, that there have been frequent cases of abuse under this clause; but I know that, in one case, a man having some trifling weapons in his possession was committed, and it was notorious at the time that he was put in prison for three months simply because the Inspector wanted to take revenge for an agrarian outrage. That was under the Arms Act; it occurred before the Crimes Act was passed; and what I desire is that some safeguard may be established against the recurrence of similar practices. The right hon. Gentleman says that there have been no complaints. It seems to me that when there is no real intention to carry on war against the Government a month's imprisonment would be quite sufficient; and I am I bound to say that one of our objections to the clause, and one reason why we move to leave it out, rests on the penalty contained therein, which we desire to shorten. And I think, also, it is very important, in connection with the working of the Act in Ulster, that the Court which tries these offences should consist of two Resident Magistrates without any local magistrates associated with them. I do not wish, in the slightest degree, to exhibit any vindictive spirit against the Orangemen in the North of Ireland, although they will not agree to bury the hatchet, and forget what has happened in the past. There is no case on record in which an Ulster Orangeman, charged with having arms in his possession illegally, has been punished. Orangemen so charged are usually brought up before the Court, warned, and dismissed; but every Nationalist brought up for that offence in the South of Ireland has been convicted. The Orangemen in the North can obtain licences to carry arms if they have friends on the Bench; but the case is different in the South of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman feels confident, and can show that under the Act as it stands an Ulster Orangeman caught with arms will not be dealt with in the same manner as heretofore, then I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend unnecessary.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny, and in doing so wish to observe that, in my opinion, three months is too great a penalty for an offence under the Act, because, in addition, it carries with it that one month of the term shall be spent on the plank bed. I do not suppose hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have had any experience of plank beds; but some of those on these Benches have had that experience. The plank bed is supplied with a pillow of unpicked oakum, which, from personal experience, I can assure the Committee is very hard; my experience of it, however, was short in comparison with that of the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). M'Carthy, of Galway, was sentenced under this Act, and he was on the plank bed for three months for having in his possession the cock of a rusty pistol. Such was the interpretation put on the Act by the magistrates. The Resident Magistrates in the South of Ireland who deal with the Nationalists under this Act have inflicted the severest penalties upon them. I was myself refused a licence some time ago by the Resident Magistrates; and it is the Resident Magistrates, who punish us unduly in the South of Ireland, who will administer this Act. I say that we desire to take the power of punishment out of their hands to some extent; we want to reduce it to the minimum which shall not carry with it the addition of the plank bed; and for these reasons I trust the Committee will pass the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and thereby reduce the term of imprisonment from three months to one month, which would, to some extent, meet the case.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I think we ought to leave this power alone in the hands of the Resident Magistrates. I have not the smallest confidence in the local magistrates; and it cannot be denied that it is desirable that they should not discharge these functions in districts where the proportion of Protestants against Catholics is 14 to 1. One reason in favour of the Resident Magistrates having this power is that they receive salaries which in case of need we can always attack in this House; whereas I should be out of Order in doing so in the case of local magistrates, because their salaries are not voted by this House. Therefore, I think the Resident Magistrates should alone have power of conviction under the Act. With regard to the term of three months' imprisonment, I think it is too long; and, no doubt, anyone who has spent that time in prison will agree with me. I appeal to the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), who, having refused to give bail for good behaviour, was sentenced to some months' imprisonment. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that one month's imprisonment is quite long enough. As for imprisoning a man for three months for the possession of arms, compelling him to lie on a plank bed, starving him, and locking him up in his cell for 22 hours out of the 24, I say it is, perhaps, the most severe punishment that could be devised for the offence. For my own part, I think that 24 hours of such treatment would be sufficient; and I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will allow the penalty to be reduced from three months to one month, and to assent to our proposal that it should not be inflicted by local magistrates, because, as has been pointed out, wherever they want to secure a conviction of a Nationalist they flock into the Court and outvote the Resident Magistrate.

MR. PYNE (Waterford, W.)

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend; and I think I can show a case of the coercion which is brought to bear upon Resident Magistrates by the local magistracy. I know a case of a man who was fond of snipe shooting, and who desired to get a licence, for which he could afford to pay. Well, Sir, the Resident Magistrate of that particular district wrote him a letter saying— If you should apply on the licensing day you will be refused. Apply a fortnight after that day and you will get a licence. That, I think, is a distinct case of the coercion of a Resident Magistrate; and I say if you are going to take away a man's character and declare that he is not fit to carry arms, you should try him before a Superior Court by 12 of his countrymen.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 165: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 109.)

Amendment (Mr. John Morley) agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move the following Proviso to Clause 2:— Provided, That from and after the passing of this Act the Court of Summary Jurisdiction mentioned in the fifth section of the said Act shall (elsewhere than in the police district of Dublin Metropolis) be constituted of two or more Resident Magistrates sitting alone in Petty Sessions. I do not propose to occupy the attention of the Committee on this Amendment; but the Committee will recollect that the Court, as constituted by the existing Act, has on some occasions grossly abused its powers. The Court, as constituted under the Act, must consist of, at least, one Resident Magistrate, it is true; but our point is that one Resident Magistrate is practically useless, because, as a rule, a whip is sent round to the local magistrates whenever any of their friends get into trouble, and they put in an appearance and outvote the Resident Magistrate. That is our grievance; and the Amendment, therefore, provides that the Court shall consist of two Resident Magistrates—and two Resident Magistrates alone—in order to deprive the local magistrates of the power of acting in the manner I have described. It may be said that it is an unprecedented thing to take away the power of local magistrates, and to place jurisdiction of this kind in the hands of Resident Magistrates alone; but I would point out that the principle is in force already in the Crimes Act, which has been in operation for the last three years. Powers of a larger and more stringent kind than those involved in this Bill were put into the hands of Resident Magistrates solely by the Crimes Act; and, if my recollection serves me, the reason given for adopting that course was this. That having regard to the class of offences constituted under the Crimes Act—namely, offences of an agrarian character—local magistrates, who for the most part are largely interested in the agrarian question, could not deal with such cases with unprejudiced minds. Well, that is exactly our case in regard to this matter, which I am now putting before the Committee. We charge against them—and we can quote many instances in support of the charge—that these local magistrates put in an appearance and take their seats upon the Bench solely for the purpose of outvoting the Resident Magistrates and getting their political friends out of trouble; and we say that the same state of things will exist under this Bill unless Her Majesty's Government see their way to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, after Sub-section 2, to insert the following sub-section:—"Provided, That from and after the passing of this Act the Court of Summary Jurisdiction mentioned in the fifth section of the said Act shall (elsewhere than in the police district of Dublin Metropolis) be constituted of two or more Resident Magistrates sitting alone in Petty Sessions."—(Mr. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the subsection be there inserted."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

After considering very carefully the point raised in the Amendment, and in view of the arguments brought forward from more than one portion of the House, I think it is possible for me to accept the Amendment. There are, however, some hon. Members who complain most bitterly of the decisions in places where Resident Magistrates preside; and, therefore, I am not at all sure that the substitution of Resident Magistrates for Justices will do away will all the hardships complained of. I think also that the statements of the opposition of the local magistrates must be a little exaggerated; but, on the whole, I am not prepared to contend for the present constitution of the Courts, and therefore I shall acquiesce in the Amendment.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I think, Sir, that the statement which we have just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was a very fair one; and my only object, therefore, in rising is to call his attention to another and a very strong argument in favour of this Amendment. I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Resident Magistrates will be salaried officials whose conduct we can review in this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S)

After the discussion which we have had upon the subject, I shall not move the first of the new clauses which stand in my name on the Paper; but I will move the second, which is that— There shall be published monthly in The Dublin Gazette a Return of the counties proclaimed with the number of licences refused, the number granted, and the character of the weapons licensed, distinguishing each county separately. The Return for the first month after the passing of this Act shall show the number of existing licences in each county, and the character of the weapons licensed.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

This Amendment asks us to do two things. It puts upon us the obligation of publishing in The Dublin Gazette a monthly Return of the new licences granted, and the number of refusals in each county. Well, that seems a fair thing, and I think it would be a reasonable thing also to put in a list of revocations. I do not see that there can be much objection to printing such a list; but I do not think it necessary that a clause to that effect would be inserted in the Bill. The second thing he asks us to do is to publish a Return of all the licences hitherto issued, and in existence at the present time. Now, such a Return as that must necessarily be inaccurate, because it is impossible to say how many of those to whom licences have been granted during the last five years are still alive, or to know whether they have not left the country. As far as I can see, therefore, all we can do is to give the number of licences which have been issued hitherto.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I think it would be better if we inserted the clause in the Bill, because then we should have the thing secured. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that his Predecessor in Office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), gave a distinct pledge in this House, than which nothing could be more sacred, that a monthly Return should be published of evictions with the Return of outrages; but it was not until the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) drew attention to the matter that the pledge was continuously kept. In addition to what I have moved, I should like, if I can do so, on the Report stage, to move additional words to provide that there shall also be a Return of convictions.

MR. HOLMES (Dublin University)

If the Returns are to be granted, I certainly think it desirable that the clause should be inserted in the Bill. Of course, I cannot understand the difficulties as well as the right hon. Gentleman; but it does seem to me that there will be a very considerable amount of difficulty in publishing the names of persons to whom licences have already been granted. I think it is reasonable that those which have been revoked should be given, and I think there should be no objection to giving the number of convictions; but I think the hon. and learned Member should confine himself to that, and take away that part of his Amendment which, in its administration, would lead to very considerable difficulties. Beyond that, it is desirable that Returns of this sort should be as accurate and complete as possible, and it is better that this clause should be confined to those Returns which can be made complete.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

As far as I am concerned, it is quite immaterial to me whether the clause is inserted in the Bill or not. I quite agree, however, with what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Holmes) that, in view of the impossibility of making the Return mentioned in the second paragraph of the Amendment anything like accurate, it might very well be dropped. There will be no difficulty in the Government assenting to the additional Return which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned on Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

was understood to ask that the clause should be left in its present form until the Report stage.

MR. PYNE (Waterford, W.)

Surely the Government must keep their accounts very badly if they cannot say who have been granted these licences, and who have not. If they could not tell who are the people to whom licences have been granted during the last five years, what is the use of the Act at all?

Clause agreed to.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I rise to move the insertion of a new clause— The possession by any person of any arm, or any portion or portions of an arm as defined by the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, shall, if such arm or portion or portions of such arm be practically unfit for actual use, be punishable under that Act by no greater penalty than the forfeiture thereof. It would seem an inhuman absurdity that a man should get three months' imprisonment with hard labour—one month on a plank bed and three months' starvation—for the possession of a portion of a gunlock, and yet such punishments have been inflicted. One would hardly think it possible that in a civilized country such a law as that could exist; but so it is, and for that reason I now bring forward this Amendment. An old and rusty portion of a gun-lock, an old rusty gun barrel, or an old blunderbuss, would not be a very formidable weapon in an Ulster war; and I do not think, therefore, that a man should receive any greater punishment than forfeiture. I should be happy to accept any verbal Amendment to the clause; but I think the principle must commend itself to everyone with a grain of common sense—that the possession of arms unfit for use be punished by forfeiture only.

New Clause— The possession by any person of any arm or any portion or portions of an arm, as defined by the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act 1881, shall, if such arm, or portion or portions of such arm be practically unfit for actual use, be punishable under that Act by no greater penalty than the forfeiture thereof,"—(Mr. Chance,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I am afraid I cannot accept this clause, which is brought forward without Notice, and altogether unexpectedly. It is highly inconvenient to re-open questions of principle which were decided when the original Bill was under discussion. This is merely a Continuance Bill, and it would be inexpedient to discuss upon it new questions of principle.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I am very much impressed with the case presented by the hon. Member opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tells us that the magistrates who have charge of these matters will not be guilty of these absurdities in the future. But even Resident Magistrates are only men, and experience show that they are not infallible. If the hon. Gentleman's case is proved, that exaggerated and cruel sentences have been inflicted by those who are not Resident Magistrates, surely the case made earlier in the evening against leaving the administration of the Act in the hands of these gentlemen has also been proved. It is, no doubt, true that the Resident Magistrates will be more under the control of the Lord Lieutenant than the ordinary magistrates, because, being paid servants, they will be in a position to be turned off if they do not conduct themselves properly; but the cases which have been referred to show that it is necessary for us, by every means in our power, to restrict the power which these gentlemen possess of inflicting exaggerated penalties. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that it is awkward and inconvenient at this stage to re-open questions of principle which were decided under the original Act cannot be said to prevail against the question of equity. If it is wrong to exact exaggerated penalties for excessively light crimes or offences, I do not think the Committee, in considering the point, should allow itself to be influenced by the consideration of the inconvenience of going into the matter at this stage.

MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)

I rise to support the Amendment, because I think it unreasonable to leave it in the power of a magistrate to send a man to prison for three months for having in his possession a small part of a rusty gun or other firearm. The right hon. Gentleman says it would be inconvenient to alter the Bill; but I contend it would be far more inconvenient for a person to have to suffer three months' imprisonment, when, as a matter of fact, he does not deserve imprisonment for a single day. The right hon. Gentleman, I hope, will agree with us that the Resident Magistrates are not to take the law into their own hands in regard to this measure. They will be able to see their way to dealing easily and leniently with their frends the Orangemen of Ulster, whilst the full weight of their power will be experienced by our friends. I think, therefore, the Committee should assist us to protect these poor unfortunate people, who may be apprehended by the police, taken before the Court, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a plank bed for having somewhere on their premises a broken gun barrel or a rusty lock. I think this is a very reasonable and useful Amendment to this measure, and I trust it will be acceptable to every Member of the Committee.

MR. BOYD-KINNEAR (Fife, E.)

I wish to say one word in deprecation of the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that in renewing the Bill we are not to enter into any question as to the propriety of the clauses it contains. It is our bounden duty to consider whether these clauses are just and equitable. We have our experience of the working of the Act to guide us, and we should be prepared to alter its provisions if experience proves that they require alteration. It seems to me that the Amendment now proposed is a just and reasonable one; and with regard to the point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that we are safe in relying upon the discretion of the Resident Magistrates, I beg to say that I have been in Ireland and have observed the conduct of some of the Resident Magistrates, and must confess that it is conduct which does not give me the slightest confidence as to their universal discretion. These may be, I fully admit, exceptions; but I think we are quite right in this Bill in taking precautions against exceptional Resident Magistrates, who may not be possessed of that discretion and good feeling which the Chief Secretary attributes to them generally.

MR. HOLMES (Dublin University)

I think the observations of the hon. Gentleman who represents one of the divisions of Cork illustrates how some of those who administer justice in Ireland are regarded by some people in that country. His remarks were based on the assumption that, in the administration of this Act during the past five years, the most unreasonable penalties have been inflicted by the magistrates. Well, in the course of this debate there has been no evidence given of anything of the kind. I hear it stated by an hon. Member that, on one occasion, a person who had in his possession a portion of a gun was subjected to a severe penalty. In the first place, I would point out that we know nothing about the facts and circumstances of that case, and it is rather a hard thing to judge on an ex parte statement in this matter without knowing the evidence or circumstances connected with it. In the second place, I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is the only case of any kind that has been referred to.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

It is not the only case I should rely on.

MR. HOLMES

It is the only case that has been referred to in the course of this debate. I had considerable experience in the administration of the Act which preceded this during three years, and in the whole of that time it was my duty to look into almost all the cases against persons for infringing the Act. I would say that, in most cases, no penalty at all was administered; but that, in certain instances, the circumstances were of such a character as to necessitate a penalty, and even such a penalty as three months' imprisonment. As to the Amendment before the Committee, I would remind the Committee that it has been decided already that for offences against the Act there can be a penalty of up to three months' imprisonment inflicted; and now the suggestion is made that if only a portion of a weapon is found in a person's custody it should be considered to be useless, and no penalty should be inflicted beyond its forfeiture. Well, under certain circumstances, the possession of a portion of a weapon might be as serious an offence as the possession of an entire weapon. We can easily understand that one person might take possession of a gun-barrel, and another person residing next door to him take possession of the stock. It would be an absurd thing, I must say, to hold that if a man has an entire gun in his possession he shall be liable to three months' imprisonment; but that if he has only a portion of it, his neighbour having the remaining portion, and being able to turn it into an entire weapon at any moment, he shall only be liable to the forfeiture of so much of the weapon as he possesses. I agree that if there is a rusty old stock or a portion of a barrel, which could never be made use of, in his house, it would be unreasonable to inflict a penalty; but the Act provides that, in certain circumstances, the Bench are not bound to impose any penalty at all. If, in this matter, we leave the administration of the Act at the discretion of the tribunal, as we do in other matters, we shall be safe, for if the magistrates inflicted a penalty, without just cause and reason, on a person for being in possession of an old and useless portion of a gun, they would be called to account by the Government, and the penalty would be remitted by the clemency of the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

The proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chance) has both reason and common sense very strongly to recommend it. The case he referred to has been treated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down in a manner similar to that in which questions of the same kind have been treated in this House on former occasions. The idea of asking about the facts and circumstances, and of saying—"We have not heard the circumstances and surroundings." The fact stands out in all its deformity that a man has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for no greater an offence than having part of a firearm in his possession. I do not see what "facts and circumstances" can be required to emphasize the action of the magistrates—the action speaks for itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the action of the Resident Magistrates, and the probability of their not acting absurdly. But I would point out that the Amendment contemplates taking away from the magistrates the power of acting absurdly, or of inflicting a heavier penalty than the circumstances of the case might warrant. I think the mere forfeiture of a firearm, or a portion of a firearm, that could not possibly be of use, and could be no element of danger one way or the other, would be quite commensurate with the offence of possessing that firearm or portion of a firearm. I trust the Committee will see the wisdom of adopting this Amendment, which, as I say, is recommended by sound common sense.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Holmes) is quite correct in saying that the clause is absurd, for the reason that there is no fear of the magistrates being guilty of the line of action it seeks to prevent. What could be more absurd than the two cases cited by the late Mr. A. M. Sullivan on a former occasion. There is the celebrated case of the monkey in Dublin performing with a toy gun. The monkey was arrested—I do not know whether it got three months' imprisonment. The other case was that of the gentleman who, when performing in the play, had to draw his sword in delivering the well-known lines—"My name is Norval, on the Grampian Hills," &c. A guardian of the peace standing by remarked—"Tour name may be Norval, on the Grampian Hills; but you have no right to carry arms," and at once marched him off to gaol. I can give another case—that of a predecessor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman Judge Johnson, at one time Solicitor General for Ireland. Whilst on a railway journey this gentleman's Court sword got mislaid; it was taken possession of by the police, and the Judge's brother officials in the Castle in Dublin thought it an excellent thing to throw as many difficulties as possible in the way of his getting it back. It was days, I believe even weeks, before he could recover his Court sword. I think, therefore, that no absurdity is too great to be committed under this Act. It must be remembered that under the Act the possession of any part of a firearm renders a man liable to three months' imprisonment. We know that men very often find portions of old firearms in old corners of the house, old locks and stocks, of the existence of which they have forgotten. I do not know that they ever find a "rusty stock," as the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it. [Mr. HOLMES: Rusty lock, I said.] I never knew of a rusty stock being found, but a rusty lock might be. As has been pointed out, it may be absurd to expect such cases as have been referred to happen; but when they do happen they cease to be an absurdity to the men who get three months' imprisonment. The matter is a very serious one. I have no doubt that no Resident Magistrates would inflict penalties of three months' imprisonment in cases of this kind because of the feeling existing at present; but we have bad Resident Magistrates as well as good ones, and, as has been pointed out, it is a dangerous principle to say that we are not to alter these Acts because it will involve a little trouble. The Act may not be good. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the Prime Minister has been in the House since this discussion commenced, and that there has been every opportunity for him to obtain the right hon. Gentleman's sanction to an alteration or modification of the clause so as to meet our very reasonable representations. I would suggest that the hon. Member should in his clause describe the arms to which it applies as "incapable of being used," or adopt some phrase of that kind. If he does so I do not see what ground the Government will have for objecting to his proposal.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I do not want to make more than a passing allusion to what has fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Holmes). He put the hypothetical case of two men living as neighbours, and each having in his possession part of a gun, which could be put together and made into a perfect weapon with case and rapidity. I would point out to him that a case of that kind would be fully covered by this section, for it says that the penalties of the Act shall not apply to any person— If such arm, or portion or portions of such arm, be practically unfit for actual use. The clause would only cover the case where some farmer has in his possession a wretched blunderbuss, 150 years old, or a rusty old lock of a gun or pistol which could not possibly be reckoned fit for use. To such cases the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman do not apply. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has some cause to complain that this clause has been rushed on him at the last moment. There is a difference in principle between his clause and mine, and I trust that, having now had time to examine my proposition, he will accept it, or agree to put in something on Report to meet the difficulty. I would remind him that in the case to which reference has been made, where a man was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for having an old gun-lock in his possession, the person convicting was a Resident Magistrate. I have been reminded of another case, where a man was convicted and got over one month's imprisonment for having in his possession only a single percussion cap. No doubt, it is in the power of the magistrates to refrain from inflicting punishment if they do not think it necessary; but that is no reason why they should have it in their power to inflict unjust punishments. I hope some other Member of the Government will consider this subject, and give us some more satisfactory answer than the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I desire to say a few words by way of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, to induce him, if possible, to modify the Act in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman only knew the Resident Magistrates who have the administration of this Act in the South of Ireland, he would have hesitated before nailing his colours to the mast as he has done in regard to this clause. Time after time in this House, both in this Parliament and the last, the Irish Members have had to ask Questions of Ministers as to the administration of these Acts by Resident Magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman has got off now with case by reason of the kindly feeling he has prompted by his policy of conciliation. I wish he could imbue these Resident Magistrates with his spirit. If he could it would be all right; but the men of whom complaints have been so frequently made are still at their posts. Captain Plunkett is still in Cork, day after day boasting that he will put down these rebels and Nationalists—a man who has used every opportunity of dying his hands in the blood of the people. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, I know it. I have met him foot to foot, and have been present at the meetings he has suppressed at an hour's notice; I have heard him order his men to fix their bayonets. This man will be taken up and put in an administrative position because his special occupation is now gone. His detectives used to follow him in the City of Cork like the tail of a boy's kite as he marched up and down the streets with his friends, male and female. He has nothing to do except, in the language of the poet, "Spy his shadow in the sun." I will not use the other line with regard to him lest it might be considered personal; but I know from his tyrannical disposition that he will only be too delighted to give every Nationalist in Cork three months' imprisonment if he can, and that, having done it, he would go to his Club and boast—as the hon. Member for Mid Cork knows—of the deed. If the right hon. Gentleman knew into whose hands he was placing this Act, and the terrible powers it confers on the Resident Magistrates, he would meet us some portion of the way. And when we ask him to diminish the sentence it will be in the power of Resident Magistrates to inflict on the unfortunate individuals who may come before them, he will hesitate, I trust, before he nails his colours to the mast, and will say that he must yield to the pressure from this side of the House and accept the Amendment, admitting, in the goodness of his own heart, that one month's imprisonment is quite sufficient to meet the cases that will come before the magistrates. The operation of this Act will be altogether different in the South of Ireland to what it will be in the North, where very properly the Executive have sent Resident Magistrates of kindly disposition to counteract the fierce motives of the Great Unpaid. But in the South we have the very worst magistrates that it was possible under the last régime to pick up—the Clifford Lloyds, the Blakes, the Plunketts, and the rest of them. These are the people who will have the administration of the Act. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, and to meet us some portion of the way by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)

All through this evening hon. Members below the Gangway have been attacking, first the unpaid magistrates, and secondly, the paid Resident Magistrates. So long as they confined their attacks to the class generally, and so long as their object was to take away from them duties which were no doubt very irksome for them to perform, as I did not wish to assist in wasting the time of the Committee, I, for one, said nothing. Well, the powers contained in the Bill have now been restricted to Resident Magistrates, as hon. Members below the Gangway desired; but, not content with that, they now make an attack on the Resident Magistrates, and not only do they do that, but single out a Resident Magistrate by name without the smallest foundation, with no notice whatever. They think it fair and just to make these attacks. Captain Plunkett has been referred to. I do not speak of him because he happens to bear my own name. He is no relation of mine; but I happen to know him, and this I can say of him, that there is not a more honourable—["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] Yes; and I will refer hon. Members who are now attacking him to Earl Spencer, whom they now quote as one of their great authorities. I would ask them to take his judgment of Captain Plunkett. I do not wish to protract this discussion further; but I wish to say that hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway have now got a tribunal of their own choosing. The Stipendiary Magistrates are to have the administration of this law. I must say that it appears to me that the objection they take to this particular clause of the Arms Act is an entirely frivolous one. [Mr. CONYBEARE: No, no!] "No, no!" says an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite—an hon. Gentleman who probably never set his foot in Ireland in his life. [Mr. CONYBEARE: I have seen a good deal of Ireland.] I suppose upon the map; but, however that may be, what I say is that the discussion we are now engaged in shows the incon- venience of trying, as the Chief Secretary has said, to rip up this Act and go to the bottom of its policy in an Amendment to a mere Continuance Bill, because the whole basis of this Act is confidence in the tribunal which is to administer it. If you distrust the magistrate in a small matter, how absurd it is to trust him in a much more important matter. Perhaps I have spoken strongly; but I thought that to make this kind of attack upon individuals who are not present was not fair. As a matter of common sense, is it not absurd to spend our time in discussing the desirability of taking away from the magistrates what, after all, must be a matter of discretion and judgment whatever tribunal you give the administration of this Act to? Should we not leave them to deal with the matter as they think fit?

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I do not think the Government will thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down for the help he has given them. We have no disposition on this side of the House for a long debate. I am of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has met us in this matter in a fair and reasonable spirit—my hon. Friends will acknowledge that, I am sure. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University gets up to defend the Resident Magistrates in this House on the ground that we fixed this tribunal, he seems to forget that it was a choice of two evils, and one we adopted on the distinct ground that the magistrates in the North of Ireland, being Orangemen, would be called upon to adjudicate in cases where the law was infringed by Orangemen, and that, consequently, injustice would continue in the future as it existed in the past. We therefore selected Resident Magistrates, because they are paid salaries, and we can impugn their conduct and attack their salaries in the House. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) talks of the unpopularity of Earl Spencer in Ireland, let me remind him of this—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a shining light of the Kildare Street Club. He is a leading member of that Institution, where all the rotten landlords most do congregate; but there is another member of the Kildare Street Club who is not quite so popular there as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell the Committee of the unpopularity of Lord Ashbourne at the Kildare Street Club, when the landlords believed that he had sold the pass in the Tory Administration.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member is travelling somewhat from the question before the Committee.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling. I think, however, that my illustration would have had significance if I had been allowed to complete it; but it is evidently not congenial to hon. Members sitting above the Gangway. I think, however, as I have said before, that we have carried this debate far enough. It appears to me that it will be enough if the Government will give instructions to the Resident Magistrates to have regard to the character of the weapon found. When we agreed that the power of enforcing this Act should be vested in the Resident Magistrates, it was merely because we had only the choice of two evils; and the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that we have any respect for Resident Magistrates. We regard them as nothing but a corrupt gang of salary-grabbers. We have the utmost contempt for them. They are generally broken-down landlords or promoted policemen, for whom we have no feelings of respect at all. But I say this, that it will be enough if the Government instruct them in the manner in which the Act should be administered, for they will be only too happy to obey them in the most servile manner. We all know that they are mere creatures of the Castle, and that if the Government pull the strings in the Castle these marionettes will be dancing in every county in Ireland.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I wish to point out, as to the suggestion that the Government should give instructions to the Resident Magistrates how they are to administer this portion of the Act, that is obviously impossible. It is also impossible, however, to suppose that in the case contemplated by the hon. and learned Member the Resident Magistrate would be guilty of inflicting an extravagant sentence for an offence which is not an offence at all. In the next place, I would suggest this to hon. Members. If a case does arise in which one of the Resident Magistrates inflicts a penalty of this kind, it is clear and certain that a Memorial would be sent up to the Lord Lieutenant at once, and 24 hours would not be allowed to elapse before His Excellency exercised his prerogative. Hon. Members will admit that I have done my best to meet all reasonable objections to this Bill; but I cannot go any further than I have gone in this matter.

Clause negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

The principle of the Amendment which has been sent up in the name of the noble Lord the Member for North Tyrone (Lord Ernest Hamilton) has been anticipated by an Amendment already dealt with.

On Motion of Mr. JOHN MORLEY, the following Amendment made:—Title, after "continue," insert "and amend."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Bill, as amended, to the House."

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reprint this Bill as amended?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)

No, Sir; I wish to take the Report to-morrow, and therefore the Bill cannot, as I understand, be reprinted in time.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I presume it is in Order for me to move that the Bill be reprinted; but I think it will be better to do so when the Speaker is in the Chair.

Bill reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered To-morrow."—(Mr. John Morley.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

I think that is too early a day on which to take the Report. We shall certainly want time to consider some of these Amendments, and to decide whether we will propose further Amendments. It is clear now that the Bill cannot be passed before the 1st of June; and, therefore, I think that the Report should be postponed until Monday, and the Bill reprinted. Another day or two cannot matter. I move that the Bill be considered on Monday next.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "To-morrow," and insert "upon Monday next."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I trust the hon. and learned Member will not insist upon his Motion. There have been some unfortunate delays with the Bill in consequence of the action of certain hon. Members; but even if it cannot pass before the 1st of June, that is no reason why this House should not finish with it as soon as possible. All the Amendments have been straightforward and unmistakable, and nothing has been introduced which calls for much further consideration. There is no reason, therefore, why the Report should be postponed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will you object to the Bill being reprinted?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

That will be difficult if it is to be taken to-morrow.

Question, put, and agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)

Now, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be reprinted. The whole Bill could be set up in a couple of stickfulls of type, and there is not a newspaper office in the country where the Bill could not be printed in five minutes, and certainly in the Queen's Printing Office it ought to be ready in 12 hours. We do not want the Bill the first thing to-morrow, but when the Report is called on.

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I am now told by the proper authorities that it is possible, and, therefore, we will do it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to be printed. [Bill 240.]