SPECIAL JURY AND REMOVAL OF TRIAL.

HC Deb 07 June 1887 vol 315 cc1233-334

Clause 3 (Order for special jury).

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

With the permission of the Committee, and for the benefit of those hon. Gentlemen who have not, perhaps, gone through the Amendments on the Paper, I will follow the example which was set the other day by the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I rise to a point of Order. On a former occasion the course which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to adopt was taken by the First Lord of the Treasury, who wasted about a quarter of an hour, which resulted in no advantage whatever. Unless hon. Members are to have the right to discuss the statement the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make, I respectfully submit that that statement will not be in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled, as a right, to make a statement except with the consent of the Committee. [Cries of "No!" from the Irish Members.] It is, however, generally permitted to a Minister in the position of the right hon. Gentleman to do so when it is for the convenience of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I shall not detain the Committee long.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I rise to Order. You have just stated, Mr. Courtney, that the right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in making a statement, unless he does so with the consent of the Committee, and that consent, at present, has not been given.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires to make a statement which it would be for the convenience of the Committee that he should make. That being so, I think, having regard to the universal practice of the House, that the House is in the habit of consenting to that course being adopted in the interests of Public Business; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, be allowed to make his statement.

THE CHAIRMAN

In regard to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I may say that it is not necessary that every single voice should consent to a statement being made.

MR. LABOUCHERE

In this case it was not a single voice, but a good many voices.

SIR WILFEID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

The point is, whether hon. Members will be allowed to discuss the statement if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to make one?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not, of course, mean to discuss the merits of any Amendment on the Paper; but I may remind the House that, while the Amendments to this clause yesterday amounted to the modest number of six, they have grown since to 55.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is in Order, seeing that it is an indirect attempt to fasten an unfair charge upon hon. Members who have put Amendments on the Paper?

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman must refrain from making any charges, direct or indirect, against hon. Members, or from entering into debateable matter.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am bound to deny that I had the slightest intention of casting any aspersion on any hon. Member, either directly or indirectly, or of raising any controversial matter; but as a large section of the Committee appears to object to my making a statement I will not do so.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I beg to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 7, after the first word "where," to insert the words "after the passing of this Act." The 2nd section of the Bill specifies a number of offences, and provides that they shall be tried by a summary tribunal specially composed, and consisting of men of such experience and legal knowledge as the Lord Chancellor may be advised to appoint. It will be remembered that the Government, when they were defending the 2nd clause of the Bill, stated that the reason why they had provided that it should not have a retrospective operation was because there was to be a new tribunal to decide questions of law and fact; and for that reason, and on that ground, they based their proposal to make the 2nd sub-section of the 2nd clause prospective instead of retrospective. Then I would ask the Committee to consider whether there are not far stronger grounds for determining that the operation of the 3rd clause should not be retrospective? Certainly, the grounds are much stronger than those which seem to have actuated the Government in the former case and on which they professed to act—namely, that a serious change has been made in the procedure for the trial of these offences. The Committee will remember that the cases which gave rise to the Juries Act in Ireland were principally these—the Sheriffs of the various counties in Ireland were in the habit of selecting the juries, and the manner in which they selected them was so abominable that it became a perfect scandal, so much so that the Government of the day—for at that time the general sense of Parliament condemned the action of the Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs in empannelling juries—provided a very high qualification in the hope of getting the jury panel to work more easily. Now, the peculiarity of the decision on that occasion, and it is the matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee, was this—that the Parliament of this country decided that the persons who were charged with the selection of the jurors should not be entrusted with the power of empannelling juries. Now, the object of this clause is altogether the reverse, and it will give to a particular class not merely the empannelling and selection of the jurors, but will enable them to try every case themselves. Over more than one-half of Ireland the qualification for a special juror is £150, and, consequently, the privilege is confined to landlords, land agents, and persons of that class. If when the power of selecting jurors was in the hands of the same individual it became a scandal and a reproach, and Parliament found it necessary to take it from them, surely, at the present time, when agrarianism is really the matter the Government profess to aim at, their proposal to hand over to a class who have so disgraced themselves and so dishonoured the administration of justice in the trial of the guilt or innocence of their political opponents is preposterous. It is quite plain that if the Government were of opinion that to hand over the summary jurisdiction in minor offences to two Resident Magistrates with special legal knowledge and experience was such a serious thing that they would not make the operation of the clause retrospective, then, à fortiori, in this case a trial by a special jury in Ireland is a far more serious matter. It is for these reasons that I think my Amendment which proposes that past indictments—indictments already found—should not be subjected to the operation of this clause—that, in point of fact, the operation of the section should be | prospective and not retrospective. Feel- ing that the principle contained in the Amendment is manifestly one which, after the decision upon the 2nd clause, the Committee ought manifestly to adopt, I beg to propose the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, after the word "where," insert the words "after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The argument of the hon. Gentleman appears to be directed against the principle of having special juries at all, rather than against the retrospective action of the clause. An objection to retrospective legislation may be perfectly valid in its proper place; but on this occasion it has very little application to the clause under discussion. The Government are of opinion that if a crime were committed—for instance, between to-day and the time of the passing of the Act—it ought to be punished by the machinery provided by this clause. That being so, it is impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment which would practically give immunity to all offences committed between this time and the time when the Act will become law. Under these circumstances, the Government cannot accept either the Amendment or a subsequent one by the hon. Member, which deals with the same question.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I wish to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is not a fact that the Government have themselves, on a recent occasion—I think the 2nd of June—in the case of the Kerry Emergency men, obtained or assented to a change of venue? I also wish to know how many prisoners are now awaiting their trial in Ireland? Further, is it a fact that at the last Clare and Limerick Assizes there was a change of venue, so that before the Bill comes into operation at all the men now in prison will have to suffer an additional three months' imprisonment? As some of them maybe detained in prison, in view of the possible passing of this Bill, I want to know how many pri- soners there are in Ireland now awaiting trial to whom this section will apply?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

I do not think I should be in Order if I were to discuss questions that have reference to another clause of the Bill. Later on the question of change of venue will more properly come on for discussion. In regard to the number of prisoners now awaiting trial in Ireland, I am unable to give the ton. and learned Gentleman the information he desires; but if he will put a Question on the Paper in an ordinary way, I will obtain information on the points to which he has referred. I believe that what occurred at the Clare and Limerick Assizes was due to the action of the Court itself.

MR. T. M. HEALY

No; to the action of the Crown.

MR. HOLMES

I am not able to enter further into the matter now.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told the Committee that if the Government were to accept the Amendment, and were to confine the operation of the clause to cases which may arise after the passing of the Act, a certain number of offenders would obtain immunity; but he seems to have overlooked the fact that in Ireland, considering the weakness of the evidence in many of the cases brought on for trial, Irish juries evince quite as much readiness as English juries to convict, and, in fact, a good deal more. I only rose for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee that, in refusing to accept this Amendment, the Government will secure for themselves the right of selecting from a jury panel containing 200 or 250 names any 12 they may consider reliable, and they will have no difficulty either in obtaining special jurors, or in selecting those whom they know will convict.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I understand that the question raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway is the substitution of a common jury for a special jury in cases of treason and treason-felony. Therefore, as I understand the objection, it is one which is raised against the whole of the clause. Personally, I shall vote against the clause; but I think it is unnecessary to discuss the Amendments which are proposed to be made in it. I do not feel sure that the question which has been raised by the hon. Member will be best discussed on this clause; and, in regard to prisoners now awaiting trial, their cases are those in which indictments have already been found. What I would venture to suggest is that the best course for the opponents of the Bill to pursue would be to confine the discussion of the provisions of the measure to points which raise what may be called vital principles in the various clauses, and to divide against every clause by way of protest against the Bill generally. That seems to me to be a reasonable way for the Opposition to assert their views with respect to the principle of the Bill, and I hope it will be the course that will be pursued. We shall, in that case, be able to record our protest against the clause, and that protest will remain upon the records of Parliament.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I think the advice which has just been given to my hon. Friends by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) is good advice, and I have no doubt that they will pay the attention to it which it deserves, as coming from one of such great experience in the usages and traditions of the House as that which is possessed by the right hon. Gentleman. I, too, think, in view of the late period of the Session at which the Committee has arrived, and the vast number of principles of vital importance which still remain to be discussed in the remaining clauses of the Bill, that my hon. Friends, who have conducted the opposition to this Bill up to the present moment with such skill, judgment, and courage, would do well to select from among the Amendments on the Paper those which they deem to be absolutely indispensable to press upon the attention of the Committee. It is obvious that the time will not be sufficient to allow of full discussion, or, indeed, any sort of discussion, upon the smaller points which my hon. Friends are desirous to bring before the attention of the Committee. I speak with great diffidence as one who has not been able to take any part in the proceedings in Committee up to the present moment and consequently as one who is liable to incur the imputation of inefficient know- ledge of what has been going on in his absence. Still, as far as my humble opinion goes, I would strongly support the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and I will ask my hon. Friends to select those matters of pressing, urgent, and vital importance which they desire to press on the Committee, and to claim from this Committee with the utmost fearlessness, and with the utmost determination, that a full opportunity shall be afforded to them to discuss those matters.

MR. O'DOHERTY

Of course, I feel that the point I have raised, which has reference to indictments already found, may be properly raised on another clause, and the principle fairly discussed. I will, therefore, ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIEMAN

Does the hon. Member propose to move the next Amendment, which is also in his name?

MR. O'DOHERTY

No.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I wish to move as an Amendment, in the first line of the clause, after" crime," to insert "other than treason-felony or treason." The Government have on previous occasions manifested a desire to show that the proposals embodied in the Bill are nothing more than the reproduction of provisions which are already in force. In regard to the law of England and Scotland, whether they are correct in that assumption or not is a matter of opinion; but, at any rate, that being their view of the matter, I presume that they cannot object to a proposal to assimilate the law of Ire land to that which obtains in this country. The Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is in accord with the existing law of England. At pre-sent there is no right to claim a special jury for the trial of cases of high treason or treason-felony either in the Court of Queen's Bench or any other tribunal, nor is there any such right in cases of misdemeanour tried at the Sessions and Assizes—that is to say, that there is no absolute right of trial by special jury; but a special jury may be allowed in a case of misdemeanour, where it has been ordered by the Queen's Bench Division, subject to certain conditions laid down in the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30. Those provisions stipulate that the form by which an inferior Court may empannel a jury in a criminal prosecution for misdemeanour should be prescribed by the Queen's Bench Division under a writ of. certiorari In that event an indictment may be removed; but only under the provisions of the Act I have mentioned, and the removal can only take place either when the indictment in the Court below is against a body corporate, which is not the question here, or else where it has been made to appear to the higher Court that a fair and impartial trial cannot otherwise be had. The Amendments which I have placed upon the Paper have been drafted with the intention of allowing not only the Attorney General, who has now a right, on the part of the Crown, to demand the removal of a case into the Queen's Bench Division, but also of enabling the prosecutor or defendant to have the same right—namely, the right of removing, under a writ of certiorari, a case in the Queen's Bench Division. If the Committee accept my Amendments, it will then be open to the defendant to apply for a special jury; and he would have to do so not by an ex partemotion, but by a motion in Court, and not in Chambers, with notice duly served upon the other side, and he must be prepared to show cause why the application for a special jury should be entertained. At the present moment it is not necessary that I should urge further reasons for the acceptance of my Amendments; but I should certainly like to hear from the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Attorney General for England, what objections there can be to the proposal.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, after the word "crime," to insert the words, '' other than treason felony or treason."—(Mr. Arthur O Connor.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

The hon. Member, in moving the Amendment, has referred to other Amendments which stand in his name, and which relate to subsequent portions of this clause, but which certainly seem to me to be of a character altogether unsuitable for adoption in the clause as it now stands before the Committee. I may add that before the Amendments of the hon. Member can come on for discussion, there are one or two important Amendments standing in the names of other Members, which seem to me to raise, in a more definite way, the matters to which he has referred. The Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member is to the effect that an order of the Court for empannelling a special jury shall not apply in cases of treason-felony or treason. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that, as the law stands at the present moment, both in England and Ireland, a special jury cannot be empannelled for the trial of a case either of treason or felony. I believe the origin of that exception was that a special jury under the old system was incompatible with the challenges allowed by law to the accused. The Crimes Act of 1882 altered that state of things, and provided that a special jury might be taken from a long panel with the right of challenge which the law now gives, and that is practically the proposal we now make in this clause. One of the grounds upon which we do this is that, in trials for treason and treason-felony, it is particularly desirable to have juries of intelligence and independent minds. It is very difficult indeed for an ordinary common jury to follow the charge of a Judge in difficult cases of this kind, involving a considerable amount of technical legal matter. I think most hon. Members would regret that cases of that kind should be tried by individuals whose intelligence is not sufficient to enable them to understand the merits of the case and to comprehend the directions of the Judge. Under these circumstances, I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The reason why I consider it necessary to include the words '' treason or treason-felony" in the Amendment was, as I explained at the outset of my observations, that at present neither the Crown nor the defendant in a case of treason or treason-felony has a right to claim a special jury, either in the Queen's Bench Division or elsewhere. I pointed out that, in my opinion, it is necessary to recognize in the present section the exception thus made in the existing law. In some cases of treason you may have a trial at Bar with the Court sitting in banco, so that there would be no need to empannel a special jury, and it is for totally different cases that special juries are allowed in this country. Even if the Committee are prepared to take the view of the Attorney General for Ireland, I think it would only be reasonable to make this exception from the operation of the clause of cases of treason and treason-felony, and I trust that the Government will adopt my Amendments. They cannot afterwards be embarrassed by them in the slightest degree. At any rate, they will be aware that there would be no departure from the construction of the Bill beyond that which is absolutely necessary, because, according to the professions of the Government themselves, their desire is to make the provisions of the measure as much like those which now apply in England and Scotland as possible.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

If provisions of this nature are to be applicable to any class of offences, I cannot see any reason why there should be a special exemption in regard to this particular class of offences. I would, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it would simplify matters if he would give some indication as to what the view of the Government is in regard to the later Amendments. I hope that I am not out of Order in making this reference; but, speaking for myself, and speaking also, I believe, for a good many on this side of the Committee, I would suggest that the difficulty might be best met by adopting a later Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill), which provides that— On application of either the Attorney General or the defendant on notice of motion or summons to the other side, make an order that the trial of the defendant or defendants, if more than one, shall be by a special jury. No such order shall be made unless the High Court is satisfied that the application for it is not made vexatiously or for delay, and that it is expedient for the ends of justice that the trial should take place before a special jury. The court may in such order postpone the trial on such terms as seem just. The adoption of that Amendment would obviate many of the objections which I entertain to the clause as it stands. I quite recognize that the provisions of the Act of 1882 may be looked upon by the Government as a justification for the provision as it stands in the Bill; but the circumstances of the case were very different, and I would point out that the provisions of this measure are to be permanent in their character, and are to remain as part of the general law of the country.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it would be entirely out of Order if we were now to discuss a later Amendment—No. 23—on which the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably arise. I cannot, however, hold out any hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Member.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is entirely mistaken in the statement he has made that this clause was contained in the Crimes Act of 1882. It was nothing of the kind; but, on the contrary, the clause we are now discussing is as different from the clause in the Act of 1882 as chalk is from cheese. To begin with, in the Act of 1882 there was a definite number of jurors to be summoned. I believe it was necessary to summon 200 in all. [Mr. HOLMES dissented.] I think I am right in asserting that under that Act it was necessary to summon a definite number of jurors; but under this Bill the provision, instead of being of so innocuous a character, the Lord Lieutenant, by Clause 15, will have power to make rules concerning all matters of procedure in cases where a special jury is required. After laying down a long and atrocious list of things which the Lord Lieutenant may do, the clause says that he may, from time to time, make, and when made, revoke, add to, and alter rules in relation to the case where a special jury is required and the number of jurors to be returned on any panel," &c. So that if there are 5,000 jurors on the Sheriff's book, he may select any 12 of them he pleases to try a case of treason or treason-felony.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that the hon. and learned Member is travelling altogether wide of the special Amendment now before the Committee.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I quite recognize the justice of your ruling, Sir; but I was only stating what the nature of the clause in the Act of 1882 was, and I was only at the beginning of my argument to show that it was not at all identical with the clause we are now dealing with. Therefore, under the circumstances, your ruling, Mr. Courtney, will probably save the Committee a considerable amount of time. The Bill declares that— It is expedient to amend the law relating to the place of trial of offences committed in Ireland, for securing more fair and impartial trials, and for relieving jurors from danger to their lives, property, and business. Now, Sir, we have already resisted, and we shall continue to resist, every pretence for saying that there is any ground whatever for the statement that persons who are called upon to perform the duty of jurors in Ireland are likely to be placed in any peril whatsoever. Let me point out that the Fenian prisoners in 1865, 1866, 1867, and 1870 were convicted by common jurors. Such a thing as a special jury did not then exist for the trial of such offences, and the Fenian prisoners were convicted by the common jurors of the City of Dublin. Not only so, but John Mitchel was convicted by common jurors in 1848—men who were very well known in the City of Dublin, but of whom half-a-dozen at least are living at the present day. Although John Mitchel was a man most revered throughout the whole of Ireland for his patriotism and the staunchness of his convictions, the jurors who convicted him went absolutely free from harm down to the present day. Then, what is the difference that exists between 1887 and 1865 and 1867? Twenty years ago you had a tremendous organization in Dublin which shook the confidence of the Government in the administration of the law, and it was worked by secret means, with the use of weapons of various kinds. Part of the organization of that Fenian Society included a resort to force when necessary, and the number of the Fenian Body in Ireland at least amounted to 100,000 men, most of them enrolled in the City of Dublin. Yet, notwithstanding those circumstances, the Government were able to obtain the conviction of some 300 or 400 Fenians between the years 1865 and 1868, and I challenge them to say whether one single juror suffered the slightest hurt or harm, either in person, property, or business, in consequence of the part he took in securing those convictions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows very well that nothing of the kind occurred. We are now told that special qualifications are required for the jurors who are to convict in cases of treason or treason-felony. The law of England is much more favourable to prisoners on trial for treason than that which exists in Ireland. In England you give 35 challenges to the prisoner, and although you say that you are anxious now to assimilate the law of the two countries what you really do is this. If the prisoner is tried at the Old Bailey he can challenge 35 jurymen; whereas if he is tried in Dublin he can only challenge 20. Hitherto cases of treason tried in Dublin have been dealt with by common jurors, except at a time when we had American prisoners brought up for trial, in which case one-half of the jurors were aliens, thereat being picked out from the common jury class. I cannot remember that there was any difficulty in conducting those trials. The Government obtained convictions, and the common jurors proved to be perfectly capable of understanding the technical charges of the Judges. Although the egg of conspiracy was hatched, so to speak, in America, and the cases were tried in Ireland, the jurors proved themselves perfectly competent to understand the law. Yet we are now told, 20 years afterwards, that although the school boards have been at work nearly ever since, that individuals selected from the common jury panel would be unable to discharge their duty fairly and impartially, or to understand the nature of the directions given to them by the Judges. The real effect of this clause will be this—you may have a panel with 1,000 names upon it, with a full right of "stand by" on the part of the Crown to reduce that 1,000 to 12. The Attorney General will be able to challenge 988, and yet he tells us that out of the residuum he would not be able to get a sufficient number of common jurors to try a case of treason-felony. I contend that this argument is altogether absurd. If the Government are going to rely upon special juries let them abandon their right of "stand by" altogether, and place themselves and the prisoners on the same terms. At the rate, let them give to Ireland the same law as exists in England. Certainly, in view of the fact that the Government would have an illimitable right of challenge, I think they might accept the Amendment. Perhaps hon. Members are under the impression that common jurors in Ireland are really very low people. If any hon. Member who takes an interest in Ireland will turn to a Return obtained by me, he will find that in the very counties in which the Government declare that they are unable to obtain convictions, the number of common jurors is very limited. Let me take the case of the County of Kerry. There are in that county 22,517 voters, and only 1,178 common jurors, or one common juror in every 20 voters. It is the same in the other counties of Ireland. It is, therefore, a great mistake to suppose that common jurors are persons who belong to the lower classes, seeing that in most of the counties of Ireland there is only one common juror to 20 voters. I think, therefore, that it is most unreasonable to say that when a case of treason or treason-felony is brought on for trial before a Court of Justice a common jury would be incapable of dealing with it, and that it is absolutely necessary to deal with it by a special jury.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I think it would have a tendency to clear up this matter if the Attorney General for Ireland will consent to follow the precedent set in the Act of 1882. It was then provided that special jurors should be elected by ballot, in the manner provided by the 19th section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1876. What I wish to know is whether it is intended that the jurors, under this measure, shall be selected in the same manner as under the Act of 1882?

MR. HOLMES

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the precedent of that Act has been followed, as he will find by reference to the 9th clause of the Bill, which runs as follows:— Where under this Act a trial is had by a special jury, the special jurors shall he taken by ballot in the manner provided by the nineteenth section of the Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876, from all the jurors upon the panel returned by the sheriff from the special jurors' book.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

No doubt we are dealing with a clause which bears some resemblance to a corresponding clause in the Act of 1882. But I maintain that it is impolitic to pass the section at all, for reasons which have already been urged in support of the Amendment. May I point out that in the Bill of the Government themselves there is a precedent for limiting the scope of its operation. In the 2nd sub-section of the 4th clause provision is made for a change of venue in certain cases, and the Government have introduced into that sub-section a provision that it shall only apply to a very limited number of cases. The argument which has been urged m the course of this discussion is that if this clause is to pass at all there is no reason why it should be made to apply to cases of treason and treason-felony, and I certainly can see no reason why it should be made to apply to offences which are not specified in Sub-section 2 of Clause 4. The principle of the criminal system of this country is that when a man is charged with an offence he shall be tried by his country. In a striking and even touching form, which is, to the present day, observed in our Courts, when a man is called upon to plead he puts himself upon his country. No doubt, in regard to a certain class of offences, which are of such a character that they shock the moral sense of the community, it really does not matter whether you carry out that theory or not, because from whatever class the jurors might happen to be drawn, we may rest perfectly satisfied that justice would be done. If a man is charged with murder, rape, or arson, or with a serious offence in which no political or agrarian question arises, we may rest perfectly sure that, from whatever class the jurors are drawn, substantial justice will be done. It may be assumed that no person is so degraded as wilfully to convict, or acquit wrongfully, a person charged with such a crime. But when you come to deal with a class of questions in which political or agrarian considerations arise there may be a serious conflict between the Crown and Her Majesty's subjects, and it then becomes essentially necessary that the men who are to be tried should be tried by their country or by their peers. It cannot be alleged that that would be the case if, under this measure, individuals who are charged with political offences, instead of being tried by jury, selected in the ordinary way, are to be tried by a jury which the Crown is to be permitted to select from a small and narrow class. One of the charges which was made against the Government in 1848 was that, in trying the prisoners who were then charged with treason and treason - felony, they filled the jury-boxes with Castle shopkeepers, who had the Lion and Unicorn over their shop doors, and who depended for their livelihood upon the custom of the Viceregal Court. I trust that the Government will not lay themselves open to a charge of that kind in the future. Public men in Ireland may feel themselves compelled to take the same course which they have taken in past times; and if such a state of things should arise Her Majesty's Government ought, not to have it in their power to prostitute the forms of law by putting men on their trial before a tribunal not selected as the law now requires, but from a class of men who are notoriously hostile to the persons who would have to be tried. That is the reason we urge for distinguishing cases of treason and treason-felony from the ordinary crimes which this section will enable the Government to submit to a special jury. I trust my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will insist on pressing his Amendment, unless he succeeds in obtaining some concession from the Government on this important point.

MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I cannot help expressing my regret that the Government have not seen their way to permitting the law of England and Ireland in this matter to be assimilated. By their refusal they have made still wider the chasm which exists between the Irish and English Criminal Law. I regret this the more, because only in very recent years there was a Criminal Code Commission appointed, upon whose Report a Bill was presented to this House proposing—the Commission itself having consisted of four distinguished Judges—that the Criminal Law of England and Ireland should be assimilated to the fullest extent possible. The Law Advisers of the Crown do not seem to be able to give any precise reason why, as the law now stands, there should be a special jury in a case of misdemeanour, but not in a case of treason or treason-felony. However, as a matter of fact, a special jury is only allowed in certain cases of misdemeanour, when the misdemeanour has been brought, by writ of certiorari, into the Queen's Bench Division. In ordinary cases no special jury is allowed; but by law it is allowed under certain restrictions upon an application to the Court by means of a writ of certiorari, and very frequently the Court refuses to grant the application. Why are special jurors allowed in cases of misdemeanour? It is simply for this reason—that the theory of the law is that in cases of misdemeanour the contest is merely a personal one, whereas in the case of a felony direct provisions of the Criminal Law have been violated. For this simple reason a special jury has not been allowed in cases of treason and treason-felony, although, at the option of the Court, it may be allowed in a case of misdemeanour. The theory of the law is that when a true Bill is found against a prisoner charged with treason or treason-felony he ought to be tried by his peers. The Common Law, both of England and Ireland, previous to the Crimes Act of 1882, was that every man charged with such an offence should be tried by his peers- Under this clause provision is made that the prisoner shall not be tried by his peers, but by persons to be selected for the purpose of trying him by the Government of the day. As a matter of fact, it is proposed that the Public Prosecutor, representing the majesty of the law and of the public at large, should demean himself by becoming a political agent of the Government. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has already shown that by the adoption of this provision there will be a great difference in the state of the law, even in regard to challenges. Under these circumstances, I beg to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).

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

I can quite understand why the Government should adhere to their determination in regard to this Amendment if it were an historical fact that there is, on the part of the common jurors in Ireland, either an incapacity to comprehend the law of treason, or an unwillingness to find their fellow-citizens guilty. In the cases referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)—the Fenian cases which occurred between 1865 and 1868—many very complicated charges of treason were brought against the men who were put upon their trial. In some of those cases it had to be proved that overt acts of treason had been committed outside the Realms of Her Majesty. Nevertheless, it was frequently difficult to prove those overt acts of treason which had been committed in America; but, although it was often difficult to obtain evidence to corroborate the testimony of an informer, no case ever occurred where a common jury, in the exercise of its duty, failed to comprehend the law or to bring in a verdict. On the contrary, the common jurors invariably showed full capacity to comprehend the law upon the matter, and they displayed a willingness to convict where the evidence was sufficient, and the charges had been fully proved. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, as well as other hon. Members of this House, must remember those cases. I have a distinct recollection of them myself. The trials took place in some of the principal cities of Ireland, and many of them occurred in the City of Cork, where I was a resident at the time. My experience is, that no class of jurors in that city showed the slightest hesitation whatever in finding verdicts against their fellow-citizens, even against men they had met every day in the week who were engaged in the same class of business as themselves, and with whom they had been on friendly and intimate terms. Notwithstanding the bonds of friendship and the ties of fellow-citizenship which drew them together, they displayed every readiness to bring in verdicts of guilty when the charges were fully proved. These were political offences, and they were tried at a time when the agitation in Ireland was of a purely political character; and therefore, reasoning by analogy, it cannot be said that in the social revolution which is now taking place in Ireland a similar readiness to convict may not be found. Let me point to the example of the Assizes at Cork held in the winter of last year. If the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) were in his place I would appeal to him with confidence to say whether or not the ordinary jurors summoned to serve at the Munster Winter Assizes performed their duty. It is the fact that at the last Cork Winter Assizes common jurors brought in verdicts of guilty whenever the charges against the prisoners were brought home. I have no hesitation in saying that, under this Act, common jurors would be found perfectly capable of comprehending the law, and quite willing to bring in verdicts when the charges were properly substantiated. At the same time, and above all things, it must be made clear to a common jury that no attempt is being made, on the part of the Crown, either to intimidate them, or to do prisoners an injustice. Under all the circumstances of the case, I think Her Majesty's Government ought to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 180: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 188.)

MR. W. M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

I beg to move, as an Amendment in this Clause, to insert, after the word "crime," the words— Being either murder, manslaughter, aggravated crime or violence against the person, arson by Statute or Common Law, or breaking into, firing at, or firing into, a dwelling-house. In moving this Amendment, I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the Committee with any speech, or at any length to interrupt the business of the Committee. I do feel, however, that the Amendment is an important Amendment, because it raises an important question of principle. At any rate, it raises the question whether the special jury system shall be applied to criminal cases in Ireland, as we understand crime in England, or whether it shall be applied to cases of crime in Ireland as crime may be understood under a Coercion Act. I do not intend to go into the question of Irish coercion. Irish coercion has been proved to be provocative of much trouble both to Ireland and England for many years past, and among all classes there is much discontent with regard to it. It is asserted that there are certain Irish jurors who will not convict; but where special juries are concerned, it is the opinion of the poorer classes in Ireland that too many of them do convict. I will not, however, go into that question. What I object to is that this special jury clause should be applied to offences other than crimes—as we understand them in England, because I regard it as class legislation in its worst form. There is a prosperous class of people in the North of Ireland, and a less well-to-do and very much poorer class in the South and the West. The Government are never tired of telling us that the very prosperous and well-to-do population in the North of Ireland, who constitute a small minority of the Irish people, are in favour of the English connection, while the poorer classes in the South and West are altogether hostile to that connection. The Government tell us that these two classes hate each other with a hatred so bitter that if Home Rule were conceded the North would be placed practically at the mercy of the South. Yet the Government are providing, in this clause, that in every kind of case, not only in criminal, but in political cases, the very people who hate the lower classes in the South and West shall be the people to try them. I may say that no hon. Member of this House more detests crime and outrage than I do myself, and I think that I am speaking in the same sense for every hon. Member on this side of the House; but we say that this clause, under which special juries are to be provided for the trial of offenders in Ireland, will not be applied to criminal cases only. I have no objection to any crime the Government may name being included in the list of offences to be tried by a special jury; but I have a great objection to all sorts of cases connected with politics in Ireland, and connected with the land in Ireland, being tried by juries composed, as they would be, of people who are hostile to the persons whom they would have to try. Another objection I have relates to the power proposed to be given to the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, I do not desire to make any kind of charge against the right hon. and learned Gentleman who holds that position; but I maintain that it is a tremendous power to place in the hands of any Law Officer I of the Crown.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is anticipating an Amendment which stands lower down the Paper. He must confine himself to his own Amendment.

MR. W. M'ARTHUR

Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, and I am sorry that my inexperience in regard to the proceedings of the House should have led me into such a mistake. I will only say that my desire is to induce the Government to draw a distinction between crime as we understand it, and any sort of offence which the Government choose to call crime under this Bill. I think we ought to have had a definition of crime in the Bill itself, and I am persuaded that many would prefer to see trial by jury absolutely abolished in Ireland rather than that certain classes of crime should be tried by special juries. Personally, I should have far more confidence in a trial by the Attorney General for Ireland himself, rather than by the class which will compose the special juries selected under this clause. If the clause be passed in its entirety, the protection which the Government allege that they are giving in providing for trial by jury will be nothing more than a delusion and a snare. There are 56,956 common jurors in Ireland, and only 12,500 special jurors; and the class from which the special jurors are drawn is the very class which is persistently hostile to the persons they will be called upon to try. I believe that if the Government are sincere in saying that they distrust the average Irishman, they ought to have the courage of their convictions and should abolish trial by jury altogether. If they are not prepared to take that extreme step, they ought not to come here and endeavour to throw dust in the eyes of the English people by pretending that they are giving Irishmen a fair trial before a jury of their countrymen, whereas they are simply selecting a small minority of Irishmen, who are opposed to the best interests and wishes of the vast body of the nation, and who will have already made up their minds upon the questions they will be called upon to try. Under these circumstances, I hope that the Government will see their way to meet the objections which I have laid before the Committee in this important matter, and that they will accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 7, by inserting, after the word "crime," the words "being either murder, manslaughter, aggravated crime or violence against the person, arson Ly Statute or Common Law, or breaking into, firing at, or firing into a dwelling house.''—(Mr. M'Arthur.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Amendment which has just been disposed of proposed to exclude certain crimes from the purview of this clause; but the hon. Member's Amendment names certain crimes and excludes others. The hon. Member fears, to use his own expression, that the Government would use this power in regard to special juries, in order to enable them to deal with crimes which are not crimes as we understand the phrase. The allegation is that there may be offences under this Bill which in England would not be known, as crimes; and I presume that the hon. Member considers that the crimes which he has mentioned form an exhaustive catalogue of what we in England are in the habit of regarding as crime. If the matter is looked into, however, it will be found that the list is far from an exhaustive one. For example, there are such offences as sheep-stealing, mutilation of cattle, blowing up with dynamite, and many others I could name, which are certainly looked upon as crimes in England, but which are not included in the hon. Member's Amendment. The hon. Member has spoken under a slight misapprehension as to the operation of the Bill. It has been alleged that new offences are created by it. The Government do not admit that; but even if it were granted, special juries would not try crimes which are not now crimes in England and Ireland. Under these circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment, as I believe that a fair trial would be obtained by the means proposed in the Bill. If it is true that a fairer trial may be obtained with special juries, I see no reason why the clause should not be extended to other crimes which, in the opinion of every Member of this House, are crimes, whether they are committed in England or Ireland. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman, will not consider it necessary to press the Amendment.

MR. W. M'ARTHUR

Of course I did not pretend to say that the list I gave was an exhaustive list; but I gave it because I found it contained in the Bill itself, and because the crimes in question are those in regard to which it is considered difficult to obtain convictions in Ireland.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

The Government themselves provide in this very Bill that in regard to the trial of certain crimes English juries shall be brought in, so that, in their idea, there are crimes of sufficient importance to justify their trial on this side of the water. I think it would, therefore, naturally strike hon. Members that such cases as those which have impressed themselves on the mind of the Government as worthy of being tried by special juries should be clearly specified in the way suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Austell. I should like the Committee to direct their attention to the fact that other offences in addition to those mentioned here are dealt with in the 2nd clause, the Government having already selected the tribunal, although hon. Members on this side of the House have over and over again declared their want of confidence in that tribunal. Nevertheless, the Government having selected that tribunal, persisted in establishing it for the trial of certain offences by a summary process; and, having done so, they then went on to specify the offences. I think that, under such circumstances, they ought to be content with the tribunal they have established, and, as far as the present case is concerned, they should accept the list of crimes contained in the Amendment. The Government are, in fact, proposing to retain a superfluous and accumulative remedy for certain offences dealt with in the 2nd section of the Bill, although they have already established a special and select tribunal. The effect of this clause will be, practically, to hand over agrarian offenders in the West of Ireland and in the County of Donegal, from which I came, to be tried by the agents of the landlords, or the landlords themselves. The Government are actually handing over to the persons whom they say are the aggrieved parties the power of trying the offenders; and, in addition, the Government have reserved to themselves power, under the 2nd clause, of sending down two special Resident Magistrates for the purpose of trying the same class of offences summarily. I certainly think it ought to recommend itself to the Government that they should not ask for an accumulative remedy which will enable them to try a case by special jurors selected from a particular class whose bias and past offences have caused all the trouble which now exists in Ireland.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

In dealing with this Amendment, I was sorry to find that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not only nothing to say in its favour, but that he at once voted it down. That seems to be a common practice with the right hon. Gentleman. Generally, when an Amendment comes on for discussion, he says—"Oh, yes; but a previous Amendment has already dealt with it." In the last case, he said the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) restricted the power to certain offences; and he now says that although the present Amendment enlarges the number of offences specified in the Bill, it, nevertheless, is a limiting power. What we really desire to do is to limit the power of the Crown by enlarging a certain class of offences. The catalogue of crimes stated in the Amendment is said by the right hon. Gentleman to be by no means of a sufficiently full character. That objection was fully met by the hon. Member for St. Austell, who moved the Amendment, because he made it perfectly plain that it includes all crimes that have no political tinge in them. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier stage of the Bill, stating that he had taken, care to exclude from the category of cases which should be sent for trial to English juries, all cases which might have a political tinge. Therefore, if the catalogue of crimes given by the hon. Member for St. Austell is not an exhaustive catalogue, the right hon. Gentleman has only himself and his Bill to blame for it. I certainly cannot understand for what reason the right hon. Gentleman would exclude the consideration of such cases from English juries, and yet leave them to be dealt with by an Orange special jury in Antrim. Probably one reason is that in England Her Majesty's Government dare not try the experiment of setting class against class; and, therefore, they decline to send over political offenders from Ireland to be tried here. At any rate. they know very well that if they had sent them they would fail to obtain a conviction; and I presume it is for this reason that they take special powers for trying them by a special jury in the County of Antrim, being afraid to resort to the process by which they tried Mr. John Dillon, and by which they succeeded in convicting John Mitchel. Let me ask the Government why it is that they decline to set class against class in England, and are yet attempting to do it in Ireland? If English juries are not to be trusted, to use the right hon. Gen- tleman's own words, with the trial of cases which have a "political tinge," I want to know why jurors composed of Irish landlords and land agents are to be trusted with such trials? I maintain that this Bill is not intended for the punishment of criminals, but for the punishment of political offenders. The persons you will try are those who have been putting into operation the Plan of Campaign against certain landlords, and you will send them for trial to a jury of landlords and land agents, who will have very little difficulty whatever in convicting them. Is this deliberate attempt to set class against class a statesmanlike proceeding? I sincerely trust that the Committee will be wise enough to accept the Amendment. Add as many crimes as you like to the catalogue of real crimes, but refuse strenuously to include political offences.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

We have had a statement from the right lion, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that this clause virtually embodies a similar provision which was contained in the Act of 1882, and we have since had a statement from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that all crimes were embodied in that Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of the offences dealt with by the Corrupt Practices Act were triable under the Crimes Act of 1882? I, therefore, wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman proposes in this Bill to include those electoral offences which were excluded in the Crimes Act? I also desire to know whether, if offences of that nature are proposed to be included, there is to be a right to try them under this section by a special jury? Perhaps I may be permitted to put a case. Supposing that Sir Charles Lewis, the late Member for Londonderry, and the present Member for North Antrim, had been indicted for the offences for which he was unseated at Derry. Of course, he would have had a right under this clause to claim to be tried by a special jury; and there can be no doubt that a special jury selected to try him would have been a jury of Orangemen, so that no matter what the nature of the corrupt practices of which he was guilty may have been, the hon. Member would most certainly have escaped punishment. If the Crimes Act had been made a perpetual Act, the provision excluding the Corrupt Practices Act from the operation of the Crimes Act would still have been in force. The Crimes Act. however, was not a perpetual Act; and, although we are told that the present measure is framed, to a very large extent, upon the principle of the Crimes Act, I do not find any provision in it to exclude offences against the Corrupt Practices Act. I must confess that I never heard a more amusing instance of the ignorance of the Chief Secretary for Ireland than that in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of sheep stealing. Now, if there is anything in Ireland for which you can readily get a conviction, it is sheep stealing. The Irish are a nation of farmers, and if it is possible to get a conviction at all, they are ready enough to convict for sheep stealing. I must say that of all the grotesque proofs which have been afforded of the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Ireland, in my opinion his reference to the exclusion of sheep stealing from the crimes enumerated in the Amendment is the most amusing. I think that the good angel of the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to have suggested to him a "philosophic doubt" as to the necessity for referring to that offence. I fear that the Government are taking a fatal step in not confining their clause to some particular class of offences, and I will give them a reason why I fear so. If you say to common jurors in Ireland that they are unfitted even to be trusted with the trial of the offence of sheep stealing, you practically tell thorn that they are a class of perjurers unworthy of being believed on their oaths. You virtually tell them—"We may let you try offences such as rape, or picking pockets, but we look upon you as likely to perjure yourselves if we trust you with the trial of other offences." The effect of this will certainly be to make common jurors turn rusty; they will decline to be the instruments for carrying out the ordinary law when they are told that they are unworthy to try other cases, and they will probably refuse to attend the Court or disregard their oaths. It would be far better to abolish the common jury class altogether, or to increase the jury qualification. If you would provide that every common juror must have a £50 qualification you would relieve a good many of them of the trouble of attending Court, and of having to travel many long miles in order to do so. That, I think, would be a much less invidious course, and would relieve the common jury class not only of trouble, but of responsibility. Probably the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will remember what took place in Sligo last year, when a number of jurors were called into that town and kept hanging about in the frost and snow. I see, Mr. Courtney, that you are about to interpose, but "a nod is as good as a wink," and I will not pursue the matter further. I will only ask the Government to consider the importance of inserting some limitation in the clause as to the nature of the crimes to be dealt with. I am quite certain that if the Attorney General for Ireland persists in issuing his fiat to a particular class of persons when it is proposed to bring to trial a certain class of offenders, the common jurors will feel naturally indignant, and will refuse to try the cases which may be remitted to them. Rather than adopt the course which the Government propose to take, I think it would be preferable to enact that all the common jurors in Irelend are perjurers, and that they cannot be depended on upon their oaths. I think that the Government ought to be reasonable, and that they should say, at least, in some distinct manner, what class of offences these special juries are to try. I also wish to know whether it is intended to allow the provisions of this Bill to be operative in regard to offences against the Corrupt Practices Act, with the knowledge that if the Crimes Act had been a continuous measure such offences could not have been dealt with? If the Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book in its present shape, the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, although unrepealed, will remain practically inoperative.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

If I may be allowed to offer a word of advice to the Government, it will be this—that if they wish to facilitate the passing of their Bill they will do so best, when they find that an Amendment moved on this side of the House has to be answered, by putting up somebody to reply besides the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whatever we may think of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland or the Attorney General for England, and however much we may differ from them, we admit that they are able to argue any point placed before them, and that when they get up they are likely to give the House some reason for the course they take. So far as the Chief Secretary for Ireland is concerned, when he gets up in his place to resist an Amendment it is his invariable practice to make a short speech, in which he generally displays the grossest ignorance of the provisions of his own Bill and of Irish life, and then to sit down after a few observations altogether destitute of anything in the shape of an argument bearing on the particular Amendment before the Committee. Now, as a matter of fact, in drawing up most of the Amendments which have been proposed from this side of the House we have absolutely taken the words of the Government draftsman and put them into our proposals, generally with a view of making one part of the Bill consistent with another. Then the Government get up and absolutely rail at the provisions which have been devised by their own draftsman; and, notwithstanding the fact that we have followed their own words, they refuse our Amendments and endeavour to make them appear ridiculous. A precedent for this Amendment is to be found in the 2nd sub-section of the 2nd clause, and the only argument urged by the Chief Secretary for Ireland against it is, that the catalogue of crimes drawn up by his own draftsman is not sufficiently extensive, and that there is a large number of cases to which it should also be applied. The Government allege that there has been a breakdown in a particular class of cases so far as the judicial system of Ireland is concerned, and what we ask is, that the remedy which the Government proscribe for that breakdown should be limited to the particular mischief they profess to aim at. Another objection against this clause is that, like most of the other provisions of the Bill, it is tainted with the vice of going altogether beyond the mischief which the Government are attempting to cure. What we ask is this—that under this Bill the scandal shall not be permitted which occurred two or three years ago when the Crimes Act was in operation. Under the provisions of that Act, men were brought up at Dublin from all parts of the country, and put on their trial before 12 special jurors of the City and County of Dublin, selected from a class bitterly hostile to the persons who were sent for trial. I well remember the sensation which was produced when an unfortunate peasant was brought up from the County of Mayo to be tried by men who did not understand the language he could speak. When this man was found guilty he was asked to say if he had any reason to assign why the judgment of death should not be pronounced upon him; he made use of words which created a great impression at the time. He said—"This is not a Court of Justice, but a shambles." A similar state of things is likely to happen again if this Bill is persisted with in its present form. Why have the Government in their Bill specified two particular classes of offences? It is because the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the speech in which he introduced the Bill, said that the Government did not wish to provide that political offences committed in Ireland should be tried in England, and, therefore, he has found it necessary to specify different kinds of offences in different clauses. What we maintain is that, under this section, the Government go far beyond the very thing they avoid in the 2nd sub-section of Clause 2. In Clause 2 they provide that political offenders who may commit offences in Ireland shall not be tried in England; but in this section they do something which is ten times worse—they provide that such offenders, although they are not to be tried in England, may be tried by their political opponents in Ireland, for that is really the effect of this section. We have heard it demonstrated that throughout the whole of Ireland there are only 1,700 special jurors. In some of the counties the qualification for a special juror is £150, and, therefore, the special jurors themselves must be limited to the landlord class, and those who are in sympathy with them. That being so, is it not a monstrous thing, when you have expressly declared by a former clause that it would be unfair to try political offenders in England, to do something ten times worse, and try them by their political opponents? I cannot help declaring that the Government have not acted reasonably in the manner in which they have drawn up this clause. If they had followed the form provided by their own draftsman in the preceding clause I do not think anyone would have blamed them; but as this clause now stands, the next time the Government wish to take proceedings against Mr. John Dillon or any other political opponent they will be able to provide that the trial shall be before the Irish landlords and their agents, or the captains and colonels who constitute the bulk of the special juries of the County of Dublin.

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

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has stated that under the Crimes Act offences connected with the Corrupt Practices Act were expressly excluded from the operation of the Act of 1882, and my hon. and learned Friend asked the Government if it was intended to continue that exemption. Now, the Government complain very often of the length of the discussions which have taken place in this Committee. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear!" Precisely so, and those cries are specially loud from those who never take any part in our debates. But surely the way to shorten discussion is, at least, to answer questions which are sensible questions, and which appertain to the Bill? We have all of us waited for the Attorney General for Ireland, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to rise and give a simple answer to the question of my hon. and learned Friend; but as yet no answer has been given. I will, therefore, repeat the question. Under the late Crimes Act cases arising out of Election contests could not be proceeded against under that Act. What I want to know, then, is, whether the exemption which existed under the late Crimes Act is to be continued in the present Bill or not? That is a very simple question, and I think the Attorney General for Ireland will shorten the discussion if he will condescend to answer it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

The object of the clause is written on the face of it. I never shrink from any challenge; but my experience is, that the answering of questions does not tend to shorten discussion. I will only add, that anything which in Ireland is considered a crime is an offence which may be tried by a special jury under the Bill.

MR. CHANCE

I am afraid that the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot possibly shorten the discussion, as it is no answer at all. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite who say "hear, hear" will only listen to what I am about to say they will find out what my reason is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman commenced by saying that the Bill was obviously intended to refer to crimes only, and thereby he seemed to imply that offences committed against the Corrupt Practices Act and under the Election. Law would not be triable under it. But surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that a felony is a crime, and, as every hon. Member is aware, that some of the offences which fall within the Corrupt Practices Act are felonies. For instance, bribery is a felony, and, under this Bill, there would be a power to try a man for bribery at an election by special jurors, who might have been themselves among the bribed. It has been said that the High Court will have a discretionary power of granting a special jury; but what does the clause itself say? It says— Where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district has been found against a defendant, or a defendant has been committed for trial for such crime, and the trial is to be by a jury before a Court in Ireland other than a Court of Quarter Sessions, the High Court shall, on an application by or on behalf of the Attorney General for Ireland or a defendant, make an order, as of course, that the trial of the defendant or the defendants, if more than one, shall be by a special jury. Therefore, it will be seen that the Court must grant an order for the empannelling of a special jury. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give the Committee one short answer. Does he intend to send political cases, or cases which, in the opinion of the Court, are political ca3es, to be tried by a special jury, or does he not? If we are told that, we shall know precisely where we stand, and I ask him to say "yes" or "no" to that question.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 203: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 189.)

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

Mr. Courtney, I do not propose to proceed with Amendments No. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 merely because I think they are practically covered by the suggestion of the right ton. Gentleman, and because I do not imagine the Government would be at all disposed to accept them.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

In reference to Amendment No. 16, Mr. Courtney, I should like to obtain from the Government a statement as to whether they think that a change of venue is to be had in all cases, or may be had in all cases, where there are special juries. I think they ought to select the count on which they will go on. They ought to decide whether they will have a special jury or a change of venue. Furthermore, I think that the way in which the Government have mixed up these two clauses or dealt with these two clauses, leaves the matter in a most involved condition. One cannot make out clearly whether any notice is to be served on a prisoner, and one cannot understand whether the Attorney General for Ireland may not go into Court for a special jury, and then having got this make an application for a change of venue. Surely, the Government ought to be content with either having a special jury or a change of venue, and should not be allowed to have both. In order to elicit a statement on the question from the Government, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after "be," insert "had without a change of venue."—(Mr. T.M. Healy.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Government can hardly be expected to accept this Amendment, because it would really limit the steps for obtaining a fair trial. There are certain circumstances in which a special jury would be sufficient, and there are certain circumstances in which a change of venue would be sufficient. [Cries of "What are they?"] The circumstances are that a state of intimidation exists in a district to such an extent that a special jury would not be of much use. In that case a change of venue would be necessary.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Does the right hon. Gentleman know what he has said? We do not understand he is going to change the venue to a place where intimidation exists. What is the good of giving absurd reasons of this kind.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I ought to say a state of intimidation where the trial would naturally be held.

MR. T. M. HEALY

If you change your venue you will not want a special jury. The Government are taking a most curious course. Either intimidation exists in a place or it does not. If it does not exist you will change the venue to the district. I think the Government are acting in a most unreasonable manner. They, surely, do not mean to contend that all over Ireland intimidation exists? Suppose you change the venue from the South to Belfast where, except amongst the Orangemen, intimidation does not exist. Again, in Antrim, I do not suppose there is any intimidation. If you have a special jury, why should you have a change of venue? The course the Government have taken is most admirably calculated to provoke discussion, because we really cannot understand their arguments.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I think that, in this case, we have had another instance of the lamentable absurdity of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in replying to an Amendment to a Bill which he does not understand. Now, what is the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given? He said there are certain circumstances in which a change of venue would be sufficient, and there are certain circumstances in which a special jury would be sufficient; but there are also certain circumstances in which one would not be sufficient without the other in which both would be wanted. And then he was challenged to name the circumstances under which they wanted both, and he said if a state of intimidation exists. What is the meaning of that? The only meaning of that is that certain circumstances are conceivable in which the Government could change the venue from one district to another district, and that, in the district to which they changed the venue, such a state of intimidation exists that the Government could not get a common jury to convict. That is the only logical conclusion which can flow from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He tried to mend his statement by saying that there might be intimidation in the district from which the venue is changed. I do ask that we shall have some reply from some Member of the Government who understands the Bill, and understands what he is talking about? Will the English Attorney General get up and give us some reason for resisting this Amendment? Will any Member of the Government get up and tell us what are the circumstances under which they want both a special jury and a change of venue? That is the point on which we want an answer, and that is the point upon which we have not got an answer yet. It may be that the Government may have some knowledge we have not. It may be there may be circumstances in which one of these remedies is not sufficient without the other, but if that is so we have not been given to understand it. Let them tell us what the circumstances are in which they want both of these remedies. It is idle to suppose the right hon. Gentleman has given us a satisfactory answer.

MR. O'DOHERTY

This Amendment is substantially the same as that No. 20 which stands in my name. As this Amendment has been proposed, of course, I will not move my Amendment, as any observations I might be disposed to make in my own Amendment will be applicable to this. What I specially desire the Committee to understand is, the serious attack which is made upon the jury system by this clause. This is really a juries clause; it is a complete Amendment of the Juries Act. The Jury Law in Ireland has been altered step by step until trial by jury is a mere mockery. Under this clause a man from a Catholic district may be taken for trial to a Protestant district. Not only can a change of venue take place, but the Government can select a special set of prejudiced persons to try the case, As a matter of fact, I would sooner be tried by a court martial than by such a system of trial by jury. If hon. Members for English constituencies would only consider what this clause means, I am persuaded they would not sanction it for a single moment. I do not object to change of venue or to a special jury, provided both remedies are not resorted to in the one case. I do not believe the Members of the Treasury Bench understand the possibilities which may be reached by entrusting such powers as are now proposed to the Law Officers in Ireland. This is an Amendment which ought not to be discussed in the exceedingly light manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems inclined to discuss it. There is more in the Amendment than the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine. The disposition on our part to forego the moving of many Amendments which stand in our names appeal's to have had no salutory effect upon the Government, who still seem inclined to treat us to the most trivial answers. I trust that upon this Amendment we shall go to a Division.

MR. MOLLOY

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland understands the Amendment, for I am sure, if he did, he would not have answered in the short manner he did answer. The Government are to be able to change the venue; they are to have the selection of the whole country to themselves. You can, therefore, send a case to be tried wherever you can get a jury that cannot be intimidated, and from whom you can get a fair trial. If after you have changed the venue you do not think you can get a fair trial from a common jury, you are to have the power to have a special jury. What we are fighting for in this matter is the preservation of trial by jury in Ireland. If you are to have trial by a particular jury selected from a select and particular class you might just as well do away with trial by jury altogether. Granted that if your contention is right—namely, that owing to intimidation certain classes from which common juries are drawn may not be fit to try certain cases, I could understand the bringing in of a temporary measure to meet the evil. But this Bill is not a Bill for a year or for two years, but it is a Bill that is to last for ever; therefore you are attacking the whole jury system in Ireland for ever. It is no use saying that the Bill may be repealed by Act of Parliament; so far as you are concerned it is an alteration of the Criminal Law of Ireland, which is to last for ever. Do you really mean to destroy trial by jury in Ireland? You yourselves have said here over and over again that you believe that in a very short time matters will settle down in Ireland, and the present angry feelings will be allayed. Under those conditions, you are for all time actually putting an end to the jury system. You are providing for the selection of juries in Ireland from a very limited class, a class which it is admitted entertain the most hostile feelings against the vast majority of the people. Thus it is, I do not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland fully understand the importance of this Amendment, and I respectfully ask him to consider it again from the point of view I have endeavoured to set forth. I put it to him seriously whether it is really his intention to limit the selection of jurors in Ireland for all time to a particular class. He may, of course, say the selection we contemplate is not compulsory; but we have not the slightest doubt what will be the result. We know perfectly well that in every case the Attorney General for Ireland will apply for and obtain a special jury, and it must be borne in mind that the mere application for a special jury is quite sufficient. The Judge has no discretion to say whether or not there shall be a special jury. As a matter of fact, for the Attorney General for Ireland to ask for a special jury is sufficient. Unquestionably the juries will be selected from a limited class, and from that class which, unfortunately, in years past has been opposed to the rest of the people in Ireland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) in believing that the jury system is injured by this clause. I regard the essence of the jury system as being that 12 men should be found to give a verdict according to the evidence. If this be the object of the jury system, that object will be obtained by the provisions of this clause, and will not be obtained if we limit the provisions of this clause. We decline to give up either of the two expedients for obtaining a true trial—namely, a special jury or a change of venue.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

The definition of the jury system which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has given is remarkable for an important omission. The essence of the jury system is that 12 men should be indifferently chosen to try a case; but here they are not to be indifferently chosen. The right hon. Gentleman certainly startled me by some expressions he used in reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). He said even when a change of venue is secured, as it may be under this Bill from one county of Ireland to any other of the 31 other counties, it may be necessary to select a special jury on account of the intimidation prevailing in the county. What an idea the Chief Secretary for Ireland must have of Ireland. he seems to fancy that there is a rampant system of intimidation actively at work threatening almost everyone from Cape Clear to the Giant's Causeway. But those who live in Ireland, or those who occasionally visit the country, cannot fail to smile at such an idea. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) would not contend that it is impossible to find a district in Ireland free from intimidation. Well, if the Government have the power, as they have under the 4th clause of this Bill, to obtain an order of the Court for a change of venue from one place in Ireland to any other place they may choose, surely they will be able to find a district in which there can be no necessity for a special jury in addition to the change of venue? Now, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is contemplated to change in any way the system of challenge. Will the prisoner who is brought before a special jury have the same right of challenge which he obtains now before a petty jury? If the right of challenge is to be denied him, or is to be limited, it would be only in keeping with the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I think it is only right, before the Committee proceeds further with the consideration of this clause, that we should have some indication from the Government as to what their intentions are with regard to the right of challenge.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I should like to say a few words upon this Amendment, although I am perfectly confident it is utterly useless to do so. Unfortunately, we have very frequent occasion in Ireland to know that if this power is given to the Government it will be used in a most grossly unfair manner. ["Oh, oh!"] Upon this point there can be absolutely no controversy. We know perfectly well that in the recent State trials in Dublin—it has been proved, and no defence has been attempted—that the power of packing juries was used to such an extent that efforts were made to prevent a discussion upon the subject in this House. That was the course adopted by the Executive in those trials, and I refer to it as an illustration of the position in which a prisoner will be put under such a clause as this we are now asked to pass, more especially if the Amendment be refused. In the case I have alluded to the offence was committed in the County of Galway. The Crown got the venue changed to the City of Dublin, and even then they were not satisfied, but moved the venue to the County of Dublin, and packed the jury in a most shameful and indecent fashion. What saved me and my Colleagues from conviction was the fact that the Government could not try us by a special jury in the County of Dublin. They came to the end of their tether; they used every advantage they could with the utmost indecency—with the most brazened-faced indecency; but because the law compelled them to go before a common jury, we escaped. If they could have put in force this clause—and I have no doubt it is in view of their experience in this case that they ever introduced this clause—if they could have made an application to bring those conspiracy cases before a special jury of the County of Dublin, there is not the slightest doubt they could have empannelled 12 land agents and secured our conviction. I dare say there are some English Gentlemen who will not credit that the Government would do such a thing; but they have done such things, and they will do them again. What occurred in those trials? Men were put on their oaths who admitted that they were landlords who had suffered from the agitation, and others who were land agents, who admitted that pecuniarily they were injuriously affected by the agitation. If the Government have power to take poor peasants in Ireland, or political agitators in Ireland, on this land question, and place them on their trial before a specially packed jury, I say justice in Ireland will become a mockery. They might just as well—aye, a great deal better, because it would be honest and straightforward—place us on our trial before the Lord Lieutenant, without judge or jury at all. I would rather stand my chance in a trial before the Lord Lieutenant, who knows nothing of law, and who, sitting without any lawyers, would listen carefully to the statement of facts—I would a great deal rather stand my chance in a trial by the Lord Lieutenant than in a trial before a body of bankrupt landlords who take refuge on the outskirts of the City of Dublin. What is the character of the special jurors of Dublin? We know perfectly well that the jury before which we shall be brought under this clause will be largely composed of landlords' agents and bankrupt rent-chargers on the estates of Ireland. The past action of the Government shows that what they will do under this clause, if you refuse this Amendment, is to contend that they are going to give a man a fair trial, to pretend that they are seeking to obtain 12 men who will do justice, and give a verdict according to their oaths and the evidence. These 12 men will be chosen from the men who are out of pocket, or who believe themselves to be out of pocket, through the action of the very men they are called upon to try. Such being the state of the case, I regard this Amendment as a vital Amendment, and I certainly appeal to any fair-minded man to say whether it is not enough power to be put in the hands of the Government, that they should take their choice of either polling for a special jury in the district in which the crime is committed, or, if they think it better to go to another district, to let the unfortunate prisoner have some chance, which he would get, of being tried by a common jury?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will answer the question with regard to the intention of the Government as to the right of challenge?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We do not propose any alteration.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 153: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 190.)

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I now beg to move to insert, after the word "in," in line 10, "a proclaimed district in." I do not know whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that in the 4th section they say this—"The trial is to be at a Court of Assize for any county in a proclaimed district." I observe that in the 3rd clause they say—"The trial is to be by a jury before a Court in Ireland other than a Court of Quarter Sessions." Now the right hon. Gentleman answering observations from this side of the House on the last Amendment was evidently under the impression that the Court was not to be in a proclaimed district in Ireland. I move this Amendment in order to make the two clauses agree.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, after "in," insert "a proclaimed district in."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

It is impossible for us to accept this Amendment, because it would deprive the Crown of the power of having such cases tried by juries which would not be subject to intimidation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I do not know whether the Government is really aware of the absurd position in which this clause is left. As the clause is at present drafted, the proposal is this, that if in a proclaimed district which, by reason of intimidation prevailing in it, has been proclaimed, a crime is committed for which a man is committed for trial or any indictment has been found against him, the Government desire to have a change of venue, and they get the trial transferred to a district where, admittedly, there is no intimidation, and which is not proclaimed, they are to have the right of obtaining a special jury. Now, they have not that same right with regard to crimes committed in the district itself. We will, assume that there is a case of Boycotting, or of firing into a dwelling, in the County of Cork. The Government obtain a change of venue, and they certify for the County of Down, Cork being proclaimed. When they transfer the case to County Down, they will, under this Bill, have the right to demand a special jury; but supposing a crime of precisely the same description is committed in the County of Down itself, they will have no such power to ask for a special jury in respect of that crime. Can anything be more absurd? It clearly cannot be the intention of the Government to have so unequal an arrangement with regard to crime committed in two different places and both tried in one of those places. Whether this Amendment will actually meet the particular point I have indicated, I do not know; but I think I have said enough to bring clearly to the mind of the Attorney General for Ireland the point I wish to raise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I now beg to move to insert, after the word "than," in line 10, the words "other than the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, or." I am sure it is only by inadvertence on the part of the draftsman that the necessity for this Amendment has arisen. Every lawyer knows that, in a certain class of cases, when a man is charged with an offence it is within his power to move that the trial be transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. This does not happen in Ireland except on very important occasions, and the Motion is generally made on the part of the Crown. It was made unsuccessfully by the respondents in the case of "The Queen v Dillon." In England such a motion is very constantly made. A defendant makes an application for the transference of the trial, because he apprehends that in his locality he would not get a fair trial. Now, if a man succeeds in obtaining such a transference of the trial to the Court of Queen's Bench, it will be in the power of the Crown to reverse the action of the Court, and to change the venue. The section is so drawn that it applies to a trial to be held before any Court in Ireland except the Court of Quarter Sessions. I do not think the Government can intend such a state of things to arise. I am persuaded they will act fairly and reasonably, and accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, after "than," insert "other than the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, or."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

So far as England is concerned there cannot be a trial by a special jury in any case of felony; but it is our intention, by this Bill, that there shall be power in Ireland of having a special jury at the option of the prisoner or of the prosecution.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I should like to point out the result which would follow from the passing of the Bill in its present form. Take the case of a trial for misdemeanour, such as a trial had at Bar for conspiracy. The law in such cases is that though the charges are misdemeanours, and, though the Crown has a right to have a special jury, these special juries are struck on the old system by which the Crown has no right of ordering jurors to stand by, and under which the prisoner and the Crown are on an absolute equality so far as the selection of the jury is concerned. What would happen if this Bill passed in its present form? Lot us suppose that a new prosecution is instituted to-morrow against my hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Dillon), and that he was again charged with conspiracy. Suppose the case was tried at the Queen's Bench, the Crown having a special jury empannelled under the old system under this Bill, they have a change of venue or a special jury in the manner provided in the sub-section and would possess an unlimited right of challenging jurors. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will see the necessity of saying something in reply to this statement. We ought to have an answer upon this point.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has ignored the case put before him—I mean the case of "The Queen v. Casey," but the Irish Solicitor General known it very well. That was a case of conspiracy tried, I believe, somewhere about the year 1876, and the law, as then laid down by Chief Justice May, has been persistently followed ever since. It was then laid down that when your panel of 48 was taken the prisoner had his 12 challenges and the Crown had their 12 challenges, which reduced the number to 24. and then the prisoner, on coming in again, had the right of challenging six more, which made 18 challenges in all What would happen if this clause is passed in its present shape? You will be able to have a trial at Bar, and you will be able to have your special jury struck under the old system, but under this clause this is a direct appeal against the decision of the Judge in the case of "The Queen v. Casey." We are being hit in a way that was never intended originally, I believe, and, that being so, I think the least we are entitled to is that when trials at Bar are being had they should be had under the decision of that splendid Conservative authority—Chief Justice May. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will not dispute that, if the Government choose to have an ordinary trial for misdemeanour under this Bill, they can have an unlimited right of challenging jurors; but that if they have a trial at Bar under existing conditions they will be limited to 18 challenges. We should have fair play in that way; but, under this clause, the Government might have a trial and avail themselves of the power of having unlimited challenges. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, going over to Ireland with his heart brimming over with kindness for the Irish people, is going to abandon the right of challenge.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSOW) (Liverpool, Walton)

The effect of striking a jury under the old system would be, in the case of a prisoner who chose to exercise his right of challenge, to render it impossible to have a trial at all.

MR. T. M. HEALY

They tried Parnell and O'Connell under the old system.

MR. GIBSON

Yes; but the traversers could render it impossible to have a trial at all under that system, if they chose to exercise their right of challenge. Whenever we have a case which is fit to be brought before the Court of Assizes under the section in its present form, it may be tried before a special jury. When cases are so important that they are not only tried at Assizes, but at Bar, it is absurd to suppose that you should not have a special jury. It has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that there could be no trial by special jury at all, in cases of felony at Common Law. In cases tried in the Queen's Bench it would only be possible, under the old system, to have special juries where the trials were for misdemeanours. It is perfectly true, as pointed out by the hon. and learned Member opposite, that under the old system there were only 48 jurors, and that the traversers had a right to challenge 18.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I would like to point out that a very strange result will take place if this clause is carried in its present form. Not only will the Crown be allowed to choose its own jury, but it will be able to choose its own Judge. At present, the prisoner, at any rate, has a chance of being tried by an impartial Judge; but tinder this clause you will have the power of taking your prisoner before the Court of Queen's Bench, and everybody knows the political characteristics of the gentlemen appointed to the Bench of that branch of the High Court. As I have frequently pointed out before, the people have no confidence in them. Therefore it absolutely appears that no matter what is going on in the country, no matter what political excitement exists, you select not only your own jury, but try a man by your own Judge from the Court of Queen's Bench. This is a thing that I think the English people should thoroughly understand. It is one thing to say that the Crown should have the right of appointing a special jury in order to avoid the possibility of having jurors who would be subject to intimidation; but it is another thing to say that you should have your own Judge as well. That is going a length which I feel perfectly satisfied was never dreamt of by Her Majesty's Government before. Are we to have the dice loaded at both ends? Load them at one end if you like, but do not load them at both. If you frame your laws in this way, you might just as well do away with trial by jury altogether. Set up the gallows in Castle Yard, and let the Lord Lieutenant pick out whom he wants to hang and finish them off out of hand. That would save the Chief Secretary for Ireland a great deal of worry. He looks pained sometimes, and in the way I suggest he might save himself from a great deal of trouble and annoyance. Let him reduce his Bill to one line to the effect I have mentioned. This section which we are now discussing is not a special jury clause at all—I call it a special Judge clause. As to what has fallen from the Solicitor General for Ireland, it is true that in the decision in "The Queen v. Casey" a law was laid down which has worked in a particular manner, but can anyone say that it has worked injustice? Can any right hon. or hon. Member say that anyone is any the worse for it? As I understand the decision of Chief Justice May, it was that the Crown had only 12 and that the prisoner had 18. This decision was rather snorted at by the other Judges afterwards, but they have never attempted to overrule it. I do beg the Government to consider whether they wish to bring the whole of their proceedings into contempt. The Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench have comparatively speaking nothing to do, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, when he is translated there from this House, will have an elegant repose. Do let us know if he is to be made a party to the state of things contemplated by this clause.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The Government seem anxious not only to have an unlimited right of challenge in ordinary cases, but to have the same right in connection with trials at Bar, and to be able to appoint their own Judges to select gentlemen who have been appointed to the Bench simply for political reasons. They may bring a case before a Bench of three Judges, who entertain strong political views, and who would express strong opinions. I will not say whether they would express their opinions rightly or wrongly; but they would, undoubtedly, express strong opinions, and do their best to influence the jury. Under the Act of 1882 it was in the power of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to send prisoners for trial before three Judges. Under the 1st section, those three Judges were to be named by himself in the warrant which he might issue. But we had a number of safeguards provided in that section, when these three very estimable individuals were to try political prisoners. We had, in the 3rd sub-section, provision made for a report, and it was provided that all three Judges should concur in a conviction; and, under a subsequent sub-section, we had provision made for an appeal on all questions, whether of law or of fact, from the decision of those three Judges. We had there a Court of Appeal in which we had greater confidence than in the three Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. As I understand the position of the Government, they want not only to have the benefit of those three Judges, every one of whom can be relied on to convict, but in addition to that they want to rely upon the special juries of the City of Dublin, on the panels of which you find turning up the names of persons who were conspicuous in those trials 30 or 40 years ago. We saw one of those gentlemen come forward not long ago at the trial of one of my hon. Friends. After convicting John Mitchel, 40 years ago, he turned up as bright as a button to convict my hon. Friend. Really the Government seem to be making a humbug of the trials for which they are providing in this clause. If a shred of the Constitution is to be preserved, the Government should take care that the forms of justice should not be prostituted in the sickening way they propose.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

My Amendment simply asks that Government should leave us the one relic of the Constitution which exists in the striking of the jury under the old method. It is the one refuge which political prisoners have left; the one shred of the Constitution remaining to them. We do ask that that shall not be taken away by a side wind, by the indirect effects of this clause.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I think my hon. Friends are straining at a gnat in this matter, because this clause, as it stands, seems to be a perfectly natural consequence, and a perfectly proper consequence of the provisions of the 2nd section of this Bill. There they have provided the law which is to be applied to criminals in Ireland. They have selected the tribunals to try the fact, and selected them with a view to securing what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland calls an effective trial—namely, a conviction. Is it not perfectly natural that the Government should now ask that they should have the power of appointing also special juries and special Judges to try these cases? I think this clause is thoroughly consistent; and I am very glad my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy) has called attention to the fact that not only is the jury to be selected, not only is the prisoner not to be tried by a common jury, as to which there is an unlimited right of challenge, but the Government are to avail themselves of special juries composed of the enemies of the prisoners; and, further than that, they are to have the power of specially selecting the Judges. I think it is perfectly right on the part of the Government, seeing what the Bill is, that they should do this; but, at the same time, it is clearly right and proper for my hon. Friends to protest against it. Such a complete travesty of trial by law, and such a complete upsetting of the principle of trial by jury, was never known. Why do not the Government abolish trial by jury altogether in Ireland?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 134: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 191.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I beg to move the Amendment, No. 27, which stands in my name—In line 12, after "Court," insert "if such crime could not have been prosecuted summarily." In moving this Amendment, I want to get out from the Government why they propose to try people by jury, and to try them summarily at the same time. I would point out one important thing in connection with this matter. Take the case of conspiracy—you can prosecute that either by a jury trial or summarily. If you prosecute by jury you can give two years' imprisonment, but if you only prosecute summarily you can only give six months' imprisonment. But now you are going to take power to act in either of these ways. There are several considerations to be taken into account in connection with this matter. For instance, there is the question of prison discipline. If you are convicted of conspiracy, as the law stands at present you do not get hard labour; but the Government seem to be anxious to alter the present rules, and to inflict hard labour in cases of conspiracy. This is really a most important matter. It may be an oversight on the part of the Government. Many things have crept into the Bill through oversight. I would ask the Government therefore, do they want to prosecute people before the magistrates, and do they want, at the same time, to have the option of prosecuting the same people before a jury? That seems to me to be a plain question to which, I think, I have a right to have an answer. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after "court" insert "if such crime could not have been prosecuted summarily."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

I think that some such question was asked upon the Amendment to the second clause of the Bill, and at that time, if I am not mistaken, I gave the answer that I am about to give now. I propose, I need hardly say—besause I believe every Member of this Committee knows it before I say it—to retain after the passing of this Bill the power of proceeding against any crime which can now be tried by indictment. It would be a most singular change in the law if, because the Legislature makes certain offences punishable summarily under this Bill, the Government should be prevented from indicting persons for those offences.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is not the point. I do not want to prevent you from indicting, but I say that you should not have a special jury for it.

MR. HOLMES

I will come to that in a moment. I want to go step by step. The hon. and learned Gentleman understands that we have introduced certain provisions in the 2nd clause that enable summary jurisdiction to be exercised, notwithstanding that the offences punished are now indictable at Common Law. We propose that if these offences are committed in proclaimed districts and are proceeded against by indictment, as in many cases it may be the bounden duty of the Attorney General for Ireland to proceed against them, that the same privilege should be given to the Crown and to the defendant in regard to the granting of a special jury as a matter of course. I cannot conceive what possible objection there can be to that arrangement. I cannot understand why, if we are to have special juries in the case of a great number of other offences, we should not have them in the case of these indictable offences. In point of fact, it is plain with reference to this very case of conspiracy that the circumstances of such offence are likely to be such as to require juries of more intelligence than ordinary. It seems to me to be most desirable to give the accused person, if he wishes, or the prosecutor if he wishes it, an opportunity of taking cases of this kind before a jury of greater intelligence than a common jury. That being our view we certainly must object to the Amendment.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The Attorney General for Ireland represents a constituency of the class from which special juries will be drawn. I presume that he would contend that he represents a constituency of greater intelligence than ordinary. But would the people of the country generally consider it a greater advantage to be tried by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, who belong to the University of Dublin, than to be tried by the ordinary people of the country? The right hon. and learned Gentleman may contend that greater intelligence would be brought to bear upon the question at issue. That may or may not be the case, but the people themselves are the best judges of whether or not there would be an advantage in being tried in this way. The people of the country very much prefer being tried by the ordinary electors of Ireland in preference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents. By refusing to entertain the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend the right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting himself in this position—he is enlarging very much the powers of special jurors under the Bill, and doing it at a very dangerous time. That is not the worst of it. During the last five or six years we have been greatly extending the liberties of the people, so far as the return of Members to this House is concerned. We have been transferring the power that was formerly exclusively in the hands of the upper class, or the upper branch of the middle class, in a very great degree into the hands of the working men, the farmers and the artizans of Ireland. That is, that task has been undertaken so far as the return of Members to this House is concerned; but now the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in refusing this Amendment, wants to go in exactly the opposite direction, so far as the law is concerned. He wishes to have the administration of the law taken out of the hands of the common juries, and vested in the hands of the special juries which are drawn from the upper classes and the upper branch of the middle classes. He wants to take the judicial administrative power away from the common juries, away from the great mass of the people, and to transfer it to the higher classes. Well, I would warn the Government that principles of this kind which they begin to apply in Ireland have a tendency to spread and very frequently extend to this country.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out that the hon. and gallant Member is now addressing himself to the whole clause. He is not confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

COLONEL NOLAN

Then in obedience to your ruling, Sir, I will endeavour to confine my remarks to the Amendment. The whole argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was that the Government should have power to appeal to the special jury instead of the common jury, and his refusal to accept this Amendment was based entirely upon that principle. He did not talk much for the Crown. That goes without saying. He wanted a strong argument against us, and, therefore, he dwelt mainly upon the iniquity of preventing a defendant from being able to appeal to a special jury when he desired to do so. Well, there are very few defendants in Ireland who would prefer a special to a common jury. Notwithstanding the intelligence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own constituency, I have no hesitation in saying that the people of Ireland would rather be tried by juries taken from their own class than by juries drawn from those people. If a defendant is innocent he would infinitely prefer that, although if he is guilty he might not care where the jury came from——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

COLONEL NOLAN

I thought I was in Order in pointing out that the transference of this power from the common juries to the special juries, which was the whole argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, is a most dangerous principle. If, however, you, Sir, say that that matter belongs to the whole clause, I will reserve my remarks upon the point until the whole clause is put. I would say, however, that to take a farmer from Tuam or Connemara, to have him tried by the residents of Rathmines in Dublin, would be the very wildest course that could be adopted. I would remind the Government that on one occasion the late Sergeant Armstrong gave evidence to the effect that it was a matter of great importance to have prisoners tried by the people themselves. He declared that when a verdict of guilty was given by a jury drawn from the people themselves, a great impression was produced and a sort of thrill ran through the whole Court. That is the result when prisoners are convicted by their own class; but, said the Sergeant, there is no feeling of that kind at all amongst the Irish people when prisoners are convicted by a different class from themselves. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is departing from a principle laid down by an authority in law which he himself will acknowledge as a very eminent one.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I have some difficulty in knowing whether or not I made myself clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he dwelt almost altogether upon the right of the prisoner to claim to be tried by a special jury.

MR. HOLMES

I said the prosecutor and the defendant.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I object altogether to the prisoner having the right to claim to be tried by a special jury. That right led to your unnatural offenders and your Orangemen murderers being tried by a sympathetic jury of their own gang and getting off. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point of the prisoner having the right to the protection of the special intelligence of a special jury as well as the Crown. He said the prisoner should have the option of choosing the jury; but will you give him that option against the decision of the Resident magistrates who, to my way of thinking, are not persons of any special intelligence, being mostly ex-policemen or half-pay soldiers? The point the Government have not dealt with is this, that when they have the right of going before their own Resident Magistrates and convicting us before them, they will not do so. They want to convict us before special juries, in order that they may give us two years' imprisonment. Why can they not be contented with giving six months' imprisonment? I think no one should have the right to summarily inflict the punishment of imprisonment upon anyone under this Bill unless he has had some experience of that punishment himself, and thoroughly knows what it means. But to say that; you should have an opportunity of inflicting two years, is the point the Amendment touches, and that is the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman has neglected to refer to. I say again, that the proposal to allow the prisoner to avail himself of a special jury is simply an Orange proposal. It is a piece of class legislation. No Nationalist will ever ask to be tried by a special jury of Orangemen and Freemasons. When you have an opportunity of convicting summarily before the Resident Magistrates, why do you want an opportunity of convicting a man by a special jury? I have not at all objected to indictments being preferred. Prefer them if you like; but the Attorney General for Ireland, I say, should not have the right to claim a special jury. At any rate, the Court should have an opportunity of saying—"You might have prosecuted these men summarily." The latter part of the clause says that the Attorney General for Ireland may, as of course, claim a special jury, but this is not a case where he should have the right, seeing that each trial will be one in which he might have proceeded summarily, but has not done so. I wish the Committee to declare that the Attorney General for Ireland shall not have this right, as of course. I think the Committee ought to deal with that point.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I do trust the Government will give some answer to the arguments which have just been submitted to them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland got up and answered the speech made in bringing forward the Amendment; but he did not answer a single point contained in that speech; and now, instead of making an answer to further observations, he sits dumb on the Front Government Bench, knowing, I suppose, that he has no answer to give. The Government in this matter are displaying a spirit which is really atrocious. They have the right of sum- mary conviction, they have the right of change of venue, they have the right of a special jury, and with all these we are told by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they intend to preserve in their hands the disgraceful power of jury packing, which they have used with such effect in the past. I protest that this is a monstrous spirit in which to press a Bill of this kind upon the House. Let the Government select one power which they say they want, and content themselves with that. Any one of these powers would, if used at all, be effective in itself. Let them select one power, but do not let them play with cards up their sleeves. Do not let them have half a-dozen of these atrocious provisions that they can use against the unfortunate prisoner in a cumulative way. I deny that there is anything in the enactment with regard to the power of summary conviction that makes it necessary that they should require an additional power of employing a special jury. If an offence has hitherto been an indictable offence, it has always been the practice to deal with it as an indictable offence, and if it has always been an offence for summary conviction, it has always been dealt with summarily. There has been no attempt made in Ireland, nor, so far as I know, in England, to insist upon having two modes of procedure concurrent, and to have power vested in the Crown to select their mode of procedure according to their choice. I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to give a single reason for retaining in the hands of the Crown this power to select special juries in cases where it is open to the Crown to try offences summarily. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman put his finger upon a single example; can he point to a single case of the Crown having a right to insist upon a special jury, and also a right of option to try a case summarily? I say that he cannot attempt to point to such a case. That being so, we must only conclude that the Government are so greedy of power, so determined to exercise their powers oppressively, that whereas in the 2nd section of this Bill they have the power of punishing their political opponents with six months' imprisonment with hard labour, they are not content with that, but, putting it aside, wish to rely upon extraordinary powers in order to send their political opponents to gaol for two years.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Would the Government object to giving the prisoner the right to select to be tried before two Resident Magistrates instead of a special jury? If a man is indicted, will the Government give him the option of going before two of their intelligent Resident Magistrates rather than going before their special jurors?

MR. HOLMES

Certainly not. It would be wrong to give the prisoner an option of being tried before a tribunal which can only give six months' imprisonment, or before a jury where there would be no such limit. Take the case of an assault endangering life—technically, that might be tried before two Resident Magistrates, but, as I say, it would be exceedingly wrong to give the prisoner the option of being so tried, and of only having six months' imprisonment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But you have the power to change the venue, and you can take such a man 300 miles away, and indict him before a common jury. What is the use of talking to us as if we did not know the Bill? You seem to us to be determined not to give the prisoner a single chance. You have your quiver full of arrows—you have as many poisoned arrows in this Bill as would destroy an entire nation. When we ask you to give the prisoner an option of being tried before two Resident Magistrates, you say—"No; the offence may be too serious." If the offence is too serious to try a man summarily in the South or West of Ireland, you can take him to Antrim or to Down, or where you like. Every time we bring forward an argument something that Was trotted out and discarded on a former occasion is resorted to by the Government. It is impossible to get from them any real solid reason for anything. There is evident truth in what is said by Conservative Members outside this House, that they are supporting this Bill neither by their hearts nor their heads.

MR. CHANCE

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would read the 3rd clause of the Bill, he would find that a prisoner, such as he referred to, would not have the option to which he has alluded. The case of an aggravated assault endangering life which he used as an example is not within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates, be they good, bad, or indifferent; therefore, I do trust that when they use examples to confound us in our ignorance, they will show a little more knowledge of the Bill themselves than to quote cases which could not possibly come within the clause at all.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 135: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 192.)

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

The object of the Amendment I have now to propose is to give Judges a discretion in reference to those eases in which special jurors are to be selected. We may see the effect of the Amendment by a glance at the clause. As it stands, the clause gives the Attorney General absolute power in any case to move for a special jury. To make such an application is his prerogative. What is the benefit, as the matter now stands, of any appeal to the High Court? The High Court have no jurisdiction. The Attorney General, or, worse still, the deputy of the Attorney General, simply moves, and the moment the application is made the High Court must grant it. Is it to be a mere registrar of the Attorney General of the day? What is the benefit of the Judges sitting on the Bench if they are to be mere puppets, mere talking machines? How is the application to be made? Is there to be the slightest publicity given? Is there to be even the small benefit of the light of public opinion shed on these transactions? Not at all. The Attorney General for Ireland is now in his place. He knows thoroughly well the practice of the Irish Courts, and I challenge him to say whether, under this section, it will not be possible for him, as Attorney General, to walk into the study of any Judge, any morning, and say—"I want a special jury, give me your order." There need be no appearance in Court, no notice to the other side. There is the wretched compensation that the defendant can make such an application. But defendants never do make an application of this description. Who is the Attorney General for Ireland who is entrusted with this enormous power? I do not wish, to speak of the present Attorney General for Ireland; I simply speak of the Office. Sometimes people in England make a grievous mistake in supposing that the Attorney General for Ireland and the Attorney General for England have similar functions. As a matter of fact, there are no two officials more unlike in their duties than the Attorney General for England and the Attorney General for Ireland. The Attorney General for England, generally speaking, is not a politician, but a gentleman who secures his elevation to the position by hard professional work, and when he enters the House of Commons, he always acts very fairly and good humouredly. But what is the Attorney General for Ireland? He is the executive agent of a political Government determined to act in defiance of the wishes and wants of the Irish people, and yet he is the man who is to move for special juries. Why, in the name of common sense, are Judges brought into the transaction at all? I have never made any attack upon the members of the Judicial Bench, and if I attempted to do so I could not make a more successful attack upon them than is made by the Government in this clause, for by this clause the Judges of the High Court in Ireland are made mere puppets. Now, do the Government intend the special juries to be bodies of men who are determined to do justice between the Crown and the accused? Often the existence of the Government hangs upon a verdict of guilty. The Government wish to give the matter an appearance of earnestness before the English public by bringing in the Judges. But the Judges are to have no discretion whatever. I greatly regret that the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) and the ex-Attorney General for England (Sir Charles Russell) are not present. I, however, see in his place a Member of the late Ministry, a man learned in legal matters, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). I put it to him whether within his knowledge of English jurisprudence he knows of a case in which an Executive Officer of the Crown, a political agent, a mere administrator, is able to walk into the study of a Judge and say—"Here, I want a special jury, give me an order." This Amend- ment of mine is an exquisite specimen of drafting. I say so because I did not draft it. I merely copied it from a Bill with which even the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) must be familiar. The Bill from which I took these words provided that in cases where special juries were summoned there should be notice of motion or a summons to the other side, that the case should be discussed in Court, that the Judges should have a discretion to grant or to refuse the application, that an order for a special jury should not be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that the application for it is not made vexatiously, and that it is expedient for the ends of justice that the trial should take place before a special jury. My Amendment is taken, as far as circumstances permit, from the draft of the Criminal Code which was presented to Parliament by Sir John Holker on behalf of the Tory Party. It is very remarkable that the four learned Judges who drafted this code expressed the wish that in every case the Law of Ireland should be assimilated to the Law in England, and after mature and grave deliberation in respect to cases of special juries, they adopted a section in the words of my Amendment. Why should a different proposal to that made in 1878 be made in 1887? Because the exigencies of Party require a different state of things. The four learned Judges who drew up the Code said they sat from May, 1878, to November, 1879, and considered carefully and deliberately every sentence and every clause of their recommendations. There are the names of four Gentlemen at the back of this Bill. There is that of the English Attorney General, of whom I shall say nothing in particular; there is that of the Irish Attorney General, who will administer the Bill; there is that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who loves power, and who will, I am sure, make a thoroughly effective use of it; and there is that of the Home Secretary. These Gentlemen put their puny wisdom against the experience of four learned Judges. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 11, to leave out from "court" to end of clause, and insert "on application of either the Attorney General or the defendant on notice of motion or summons to the other side, make an order that the trial of the defendant or defendants, if more than one, shall be by a special jury. No such order shall be made unless the High Court is satisfied that the application for it is not made vexatiously or for delay, and that it is expedient for the ends of justice that the trial should take place before a special jury. The court may in such order postpone the trial on such terms as seem just."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

The Amendment that has just been moved raises a narrow, but, at the same time, an important issue. Similar Amendments stand in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). I only regret that it has not fallen to the lot of either of those right hon. Gentlemen to move this Amendment, because I think they would not have entirely forgotten the courtesies which ought to exist between one Member of the House and another, and would have recognized that there may be honourable men practicing at the Irish Bar. The question raised by the Amendment is whether a special jury shall, under certain circumstances, be obtained as a matter of right. I need hardly say that this is a question to which the Government have given careful and mature consideration, and the conclusion they have come to is embodied in the Bill. The clause corresponds in this respect with a clause in the Act of 1882, which introduced into the Criminal Law a practice already established in civil actions. In every civil action tried in this country, it is the right of one or the other party, as a matter of course, to apply for a special jury. There was a time when it "was not a matter of course, and when an order of the Court was required; but a change was made, and now it is a matter of right. We have come to the conclusion that it ought to be a matter of right in criminal cases. It is asked why discretion is not given to the Court? Applications for special juries will very rarely be made vexatiously, and it is a very inconvenient thing to have the facts of a criminal case discussed at great length on a preliminary motion of this kind. I know sufficient of the practice in Ireland to know that there would be a discussion in behalf of the defence in every single case of this kind. All the facts would be canvassed—a thing which is to be avoided if it be possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Mac Neill) referred at some length to the character of the Attorney General for Ireland. He said he did not refer to me personally, but——

MR. MAC NEILL

I referred simply to the character of the Office.

MR. HOLMES

He said the holder of the Office is a servant of the Executive. That I entirely deny. The Attorney General for Ireland is in the same position exactly as the Attorney General for England. I have had the honour of knowing many men who have held the Office of Attorney General for Ireland, and I do not know any one of them who would take a hint or order from any Member of the Executive. The Attorney General for Ireland acts upon his ownmotion—indeed, I have never known a hint or order given by the Executive in reference to the discharge of his duties. Whatever is done by the Attorney General for Ireland is done upon his own responsibility, and upon his own initiative. If he does any wrong the Committee may be sure it is his own act, and in no way dictated by any other Member of the Government. There is not a single member of the legal Profession in Ireland, who carries on his work in an honourable way, who would accept the Office of Attorney General subject to the terms and conditions which have been specified by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The simple reason why the Attorney General is mentioned in this clause is that he is one party to the criminal litigation. The Attorney General for Ireland stands in the same position on one side as the accused stands on the other; therefore, if an application is to be made or notice is to be served, it must be done on the one side by the Attorney General for Ireland, and on the other by the defendant. It is asked why we deviate from the Act of 1882. Well, the reason is very simple; we think that, inasmuch the service of a notice would not have the same authentication as an order of the Court, and seeing that it must be acted on by the Sheriff and other officers, it is better to have the order drawn up by the Court. When it is ob- jected that it is an order, as of course, it must be remembered that such things as those are well known in law. That is a small matter; but, as reference has been made to it, I thought it right to mention it. I will not take up the time of the Committee by going into this matter further.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

I will certainly draw no distinctions between considerations that apply to the Office of the Attorney General for Ireland and to those that would apply to a similar Office in England, though, of course, it is well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House that in Ireland the Attorney General is much closer in connection with the administration of the Criminal Law than the Attorney General is in England. But I should object to this clause, as it now stands, whether it applied to the Attorney General for Ireland or the Attorney General for England, and I will very shortly state to the Committee why I should object to it. It may, or may not, be a proper thing to give to the Attorney General for Ireland the right of requiring on his own ipse dixit a special jury. That may, or may not, be right; but if it be right to give him that power I do not see why the Court is to be brought into the matter at all, because this clause, as it stands without amendment, requires the Court, not as a judicial Act, not as a matter upon which their judgment and discretion are called in question, but to act as a more Ministerial register in judicial form, in such manner, as the Attorney General, in his executive capacity, may be pleased individually to determine. Therefore, if it be right that this power should be vested with the Attorney General for Ireland, let it be given to him openly, and let the precedent of the Act of 1882 be followed, by which no reference to the Court at all was contemplated, but according to which it was given to the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether there should, or should not, be a special jury. I am not myself in the least affected by the precedent of the Statute of 1882. I will not say more than this in reference to that Statute. I do not agree that the circumstances were at all analogous to those of the present case. I do not think that the state of things which, it was argued, justified the precedent of 1882, in fact, justified that precedent, and if it did, that state of things does not now exist. I had the pleasure of voting against what was done in 1882, as I should, under similar circumstances, vote against it again. But there is, besides that difference that I have suggested, the further difference, that in 1882 it was admittedly the temporary use of what was called a "hateful expedient" by the Government. It was said to be an exceptional measure, only to be justified by the circumstances of the day, and only to be resorted to for the time, under exceptional temporary circumstances. But the Bill we are now dealing with it is intended to incorporate permanently into the general law of the land; therefore, it does seem to me more important that we should consider closely the powers which are given under it. I say, therefore, first, that if the power is to be given to the Attorney General for Ireland it ought to be given to him directly, and that the Court ought not to be made merely a machine, so to speak, for registering, in a judicial form, his behests. But I object to the Attorney General for Ireland having this power, and I think it is of importance that this should be brought to the attention of the Committee at once. The question of the special jury may be most important. It is very significant that the framers of this Bill have used the same language, practically, as to each important matter—namely, that they have given power to the Attorney General for Ireland, in the first instance, to declare whether the venue should be changed, whether there should be a special jury, and that there should be an order of the Court as of course. My objection, therefore, is this that the power ought not to be vested in the Attorney General for Ireland, and that, if there is to be a reference to the Court at all, the proper form in which that reference to the Court should take is this, that the Court may, for good cause, make the order either for a special jury or to change the venue as it sees fit for good reason. I think the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman deserve attention because, though one may not agree with him, he is at least always clear in what he says. But, in this case, the only argument I heard him use in support of the clause as it stands and against the Amendment was, that the fact of requiring it to be an order of the Court would give it an appearance of greater solemnity. He said that, or words to that effect. But that does not seem to me to be at all a sufficient reason. I do not think it is a proper position in which to place any person of the judicial Bench either in England or in Ireland—the position of merely having to register the will of the Executive Officer of the day—the Attorney General for Ireland, who is a political Member of the Executive Government. I say the reference ought to be if it is a matter that requires the intervention of the judicial authority at all, the direct intervention of the Judge, who shall say whether or not the order is one which should be made. I should very much have preferred if this discussion could have been taken on the Amendment which stands on the Paper, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry Fowler), or on the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my own name; but as, Sir, the way in which you will put this Amendment will exclude later Amendments to the same effect from coming on, I shall feel bound to support the proposal before the Committee.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I exceedingly regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should have thought it necessary to import into this discussion, which was distinctly of an academic character, a very considerable amount of heat, and that whilst he accused my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) of forgetting the courtesy due to men holding judicial positions, he did not himself think it a breach of courtesy to express regret that my hon. and learned Friend belonged to a profession of which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland himself is so distinguished an ornament. I regret very much that any discussion should be carried on in this House in such a manner, and I think that the last thing people who live in glass houses should do is to throw stones. I think it would be well for right hon. Gentlemen if they desired to avoid the aspersion of being merely Pecksniffs to refrain from throwing accusations against hon. Members as to breaches of courtesy in this Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked us why the parties in these prosecutions should not have this right, and he pointed out that though the right was given to the Attorney General for Ireland to have a special jury if he desired it, yet the balance of justice was struck by giving the defendant an equal right to claim a special jury, if he so desired it. That argument is obviously and transparently a fallacy. He might, with an equal amount of reason, say this to a prisoner—"It is true I take power to hang you, but I bring about a balance of justice in the ease by giving you power to hang yourself." I am surprised that a lawyer of the experience and ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman should use such an argument in this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to argue with us who say that the Attorney General for Ireland should not have this power, and he seemed to speak of civil cases, and of criminal cases alike. But there is a great distinction to be drawn between these cases. Matters in dispute in civil actions in Ireland are, as a rule, of very small importance, only involving a few pounds; and jurors, from whatever class they are drawn, are perfectly capable of dealing with such considerations. Then, again, in oases of this kind, the plaintiff and the defendant stand upon perfectly equal terms, each one having to manage his own case, out of his own resources. They have equal rights of challenge, and have equal facilities for the production of evidence, but none of these analogies exist in a case where the Crown is the prosecutor. The Crown with all its powers, and with all its wealth, and with all the means, creditable and discreditable, by which it obtains convictions, and with its unlimited power of requiring jurors to stand aside, is in a very different position from a party in a civil action. It must be remembered that the Crown is on the side of the Resident Magistrates, and that you have the Resident Magistrates taking one side, and, it may be, poor and needy peasantry standing upon the other. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not had regard to the Indictment for Offences Bill of 1879. He was asked to give a reason why the Government had abandoned every principle set forth in that measure, but we know that the memories of Ministerialists are very short. They are very fond of talking about continuity of policy—continuity of foreign policy, and so forth—and they should have given us some reason why, in the matter we are now discussing, they have abandoned continuity. They should have told us why they turned their backs upon the Bill of 1879. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had referred to that Act, would have found that under one of the Sections the Court might be asked to interfere and decide whether special juries should be had, or should not be had, and was entitled to refuse special juries unless it saw that it was expedient for the ends of justice that they should be empannelled. It is a strange thing that the Executive should be afraid of giving, in this Bill, similar powers to those contained in the measure to which I refer. We heard, about half-an-hour ago, a long disquisition, in which the Law Officer proceeded to show that in cases of felony it would be impossible to get a trial if the jury were struck under the old system; that if a trial were taken to the Court of Queen's Bench, and the prisoner charged with felony chose to exercise his right of challenge, he would be able to defeat the ends of justice. I did not think that argument a sound and true one, and I referred to the section of the Act under which such a state of things was said to be possible, and I found that the law did not bear the construction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman placed upon it. But, apart from those technical questions, there is a larger and deeper question involved. The case of the Government, in introducing this Bill, is that law and order is at a discount in Ireland, that no confidence in the law exists, and that law does not protect those who appeal to its protection. But I maintain that the Clause, as it stands, would act directly against that view, it would destroy confidence in the law, and render the law still less powerful to protect those who appeal to it. That is perfectly obvious. For the first time in Criminal Law it is proposed to make the Judges the merest Ministerial Officers of the Executive Government in thorough mockery of their judicial functions. It is proposed to compel them to do that which the Attorney General for Ireland thinks it right that they should do. I have always understood that a Judge is a person who should sit in a Court, having jurisdiction to decide according to his conscience, and according to the law, and to administer justice impartially between one side and the other. Though that distinction may apply to future trials where the prosecutor is not the Crown, yet I would point out that it is proposed by this clause that where the Crown puts forth its power to obtain a conviction against an unfortunate peasant, the Judge should no longer be independent, but should be degraded into acting as a mere tool of the Executive Government. We have had allusion to the Act of 1882. Eight hon. Gentlemen who are so fond of appealing to those Acts, however, are not willing to agree with the section of that Act at all; because, in the 4th section of that Act, I find that by notice served upon either party, a special jury shall be had, and no application to the Court is necessary. I hope we shall be troubled no more by incorrect applications of an Act the principle of which the Tory Party 18 months ago abandoned once and for ever. I hope we may have some clear explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to why, in dealing with this Bill for the first time, they depart from the principles of a measure which a Committee of Tory Members brought forward, and which was revised by a Committee of Judges, most of whom were Tories, and which was amended under the patronage of the Tory Government. I should like to know what benefit the Government expect to obtain from the degradation of judicial offices in Ireland, at a time when they say that law and order is weak, and requires to be strengthened in that country. I must say it seems to me that theirs is a very peculiar way of strengthening law and order; and I must say I trust that we shall have some more moderate and reasonable defence made for the Bill as it stands than that which we have heard from the Tory Law Officer, who gets £9,000 a-year, and governs the whole of the judicial machinery in Ireland.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I assume that orders for special juries, which have been referred to, are obtained in the Court in some way or other?

MR. HOLMES

I think that in Ireland they are moved for in Court, and not in chambers; but the application is of a formal character.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

The Committee having accepted the principle that there should be special juries when circumstances seem to require it in the classes of cases in Ireland which have been referred to, the point is whether special juries should be granted as a matter of course on the application of either the Attorney General for Ireland who represents the prosecution, or of the counsel for the defendant who is to be put on his trial; or whether the granting of the special jury should be a distinct act of judicial discretion on the part of the Court. That appears to be the real issue; and, for my own part, I desire to enforce the view that this granting of the special jury should be a matter of judicial discretion, and not a matter of course. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland raised two arguments, both of which are weighty. His first was this—he said—"You are entitled in civil procedure to a special jury as a matter of course, and why should you not in criminal matters or questions of as great importance have the same right?" The answer to that is, that the essence of criminal procedure is that a man shall be tried by his peers—by people in his own rank of life, who may be assumed to have sympathy with the circumstances, and with the facts that surround the offence with which he is charged—I do not mean to say sympathy with the offence, but sympathy with the circumstances surrounding the parties. I think that is a sufficient distinction as between a civil and a criminal action. A civil action in this country is, as a rule, merely a matter of money; but the assumption in the Criminal Law in this country is that criminal charges are of a much graver nature, and, as affecting individuals in their ordinary capacity as members of the community, they should be tried by their peers. I must say that the other objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have a little more force in it—namely, that there is a danger of all the facts of the case being brought out preliminary. Would that be so? Under Palmer's Act I never knew any practical inconvenience to arise from the statements of the facts coming before the Court, and for the reason that the application for the Court would be, not on the merits or demerits of the case, but as to whether there would be a probability of an ordinary jury discharging its duty without fear or favour; and in considering a point of that sort the influence which the prosecution would have on the one side might be considered no more than the influence the prisoner might have upon the jury on the other hand. No doubt, the Government have fully considered this matter, and there is not the slightest doubt that the majority of this Committee will vote according to the view of the Government. But so far as the Act of 1882 goes, I, like my hon, and learned Friend the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell), shall not be bound by that Act. I fought many a battle against that measure; I resisted many of its clauses, just as I an resisting this Bill to-day. I dislike that Act; the Government professes to be guided by it in some respects, but they are now departing from it. They are introducing another plan because they say it is a better one. I must say I think that their mode is an improvement on that of 1882. The question is, if there is a probability that there cannot be a fair trial before a common jury, that question should not be settled by either of the litigants—either by the Crown, on the one hand, or by the prisoner, on the other, the matter should be considered and decided by the Court. If a special jury is awarded, it should be awarded by the Court, for, under those circumstances, the verdict would be more likely to be acceptable than would the decision under the circumstances proposed. I do not think the Crown would act vexatiously; but I think that both sides would try to get a jury that they would consider consonant with justice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

It seems to me that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has made a very clear and simple statement of the law, and that he expresses a firm and candid opinion that those who hold the Office of Attorney General for Ireland should not be hampered or influenced in pursuing their course of public conduct by any such motives as are suggested by those who move these Amendments. I fully admit the very great importance of this question, and particularly the aspect of it to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has directed attention. But I may say, after considering this matter very carefully, that there are serious objections to having, as has been suggested, a preliminary discussion in Court for the purpose of deciding whether or not there should be a special jury. Now, the question of the removal of defendants under a change of venue is an entirely different matter from this. The former Act only applies to cases of changes of venue, and it has nothing whatever to do in this regard. The Government have considered that in dealing with the class of facts which would be likely to give rise to the necessity on one side or the other for an application for a special jury it is very undesirable that there should be a preliminary trial or inquiry, which must, to a very large extent, involve both parties in a disclosure of their case and the facts upon which, they rely in such a way as to indicate the merits. But what are the facts? The application is to be made either on the responsibility of the Attorney General for Ireland of the day, who is presumed to do his duty impartially, and who is thoroughly conversant with the facts of the case, or it is to be made on the responsibility of the advisers of the defendants, who also are perfectly acquainted with the pertinent facts. This is fair to both sides. And then one word more with regard to the suggestion that the Courts are in some sort of indirect manner affected adversely by the proposal in this clause. So far as the assertion that the dignity of the Court would be endangered is concerned, I say that the Government has put forward their proposal simply because they think that it is exceedingly desirable that a matter of this character should be done formally by the orders of the Court, and should not be done by giving notice on the responsibility of one side or of the other. When the matter has been done in that formal way it would be regarded as an important step, and one that would not be taken hastily and without consideration. The Government certainly consider that where equal right of applying is given to both prosecutor and to defendant it is not at all desirable or in the public interests that there should be a preliminary inquiry or discussion. That being so, the Government are unable to accept this Amendment, because it would remove the responsibility from the shoulders of the Attorney General for Ireland in Office, and it would deprive the defendant of rights which he has under the clause as it now stands. For these reasons it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I am not myself an admirer of the jury system when it is perverted from its proper purpose. However, I am strongly of opinion that the jury system is a good system when the defendant is tried by his peers without fear or prejudice; and I mean by peers those who are pretty much on a level as regards social position and the like with the accused. It is quite clear to me that a jury composed exclusively of special jurors is not a fitting tribunal for the trial of prisoners coming from a class to which such jurors do not themselves belong. These juries are bodies in which inhere very great social responsibility, if they fairly dispense justice between man and man. But, of all tribunals, the packed jury is undoubtedly the worst, and I think the Government should take some care against the institution and nurture of such a gross abuse. Yet it seems to me that the Bill of the Government is aimed against the jury system in its original and proper sense of trial by peers. It was said that the object of the Amendment was to insure that justice would be done; but if you have packed juries——

THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) is discussing three Amendments at once. The question is whether the special jury is to be obtained as a matter of right by either prosecutor or defendant, or whether the matter is to be left to the discretion of the Court.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I think that the remark I was making just now would have applied especially to this question of special juries, because it does seem to me that if you have a jury devoid of the sense of social responsibility as peers of the accused, not justice, but injustice, will be done. As to changing the venue and the like, I myself believe that that might be a benefit to a man in a high station of life, but certainly not, in many cases, to the poor. For these reasons I support the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to so modify the clause as will prevent the adoption to pernicious purposes of the special jury system.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not think, Sir, that the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) can have even himself accepted seriously the line of argument which he pursued. For my part, I cannot understand why it is that Ministers of the Crown persist in making statements and weaving arguments which have no tendency to clear up the matters in discussion or to answer the objections which have been made from this side of the House in regard to those Amendments. It is a very hard, it is a very difficult matter indeed, for us to take as a really serious argument the assertion of the Government that they considered they were doing equal justice all round in this matter, because they gave the same right to the defendant which was given to the Attorney General for Ireland. Does the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) suppose or pretend that any person in Ireland of our way of thinking is going to apply for a special jury? He must surely see the absurdity and the preposterous character of such an idea. But then, on the other hand, the members of the Orange Party can apply for a special jury, and this provision is for the benefit of Orangemen, and expressly left in in order that the Orangemen may apply for such a jury as in their case will greatly lessen the risk of conviction. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite must know that this right given to the defendant, which the Government put forward as a justification for the method of this clause, is absolutely no right whatever, and I say that it is a perfect mockery to talk about the same right being extended to the prisoner as is extended to the prosecutor. Now, let us take an illustration. We have an Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), which we intend, if necessary, to press to a Division, expressly omitting the words "or defendant," and seeking to deprive the defendant of the so-called right which the Government propose to give the defendant, simply because we know quite well that it is absurd to suppose for a single moment that any one of the same way of thinking as the Irish Members would apply for a special jury. If it were necessary for me to bring home conviction in such a matter as this, the absurdity of which must be obviously evident to all fair thinking men, if it were necessary for me to take an illustration of the empty pretence of this proposal to give a pretended right to the defendant, I have only to ask the Committee to turn to Clause 4, where it will be found that the Government put forward, as a benefit to the defendant, to get a change of venue, and yet no such provision is made, although in this case a power of the sort proposed would be a benefit to a defendant. In Clause 3 persons are entitled to apply for a special jury, which, unless they happen to be Orangemen, will inevitably convict them. In Clause 4, where it is urgently needed, no such right is pretended to be given to the persons affected at all. I ask the Government, is there any force whatever in the argument put forward by the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), that equal rights were given to the defendant and to the prosecution. It is perfectly evident to anyone who understands the dodges of the Law Officers that the Government are very determined to have what the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), in an unguarded moment, called an "effective trial." The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say a fair trial—he dropped the mask; and the object of the clause he made clear was to secure a course of conviction fas or nefas. If there is an honest Judge amongst the very few such who adorn the Irish Bench—['' Order!"]—I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite why, if they consider the Irish Judges honest, they will not leave it to the discretion of those Judges in the administration of this affair? It is hon. Members on the other side who distrust or suspect the Irish Judges, because they will not allow to the discretion of those Judges the decision whether the venue should be changed. What the Government want is that every power shall be in the manipulation of the Executive in Ireland, in order that everything may be safe and secure against their prisoners.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 106: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I beg to move, Sir, that the clause should be amended by omitting the words "or a defendant." These words would give the defendant a right to have a special jury which would convict all defendants but Orangemen; and in order to get rid at once of all the pretence of fair play on the part of the Government, I move the omission of these words. Something similar to this clause was moved in the Act of 1881–2, but we did not then understand the purport of it. However, within the last few years we have gained considerable experience and of such a character as makes us very chary about the benefits which the Government offer to their opponents. I call this portion of the clause, myself, the unnatural offences portion. When Mr. Samuel Walker, as a Member of the late Government and the Solicitor General for Ireland, defended certain political defendants, a bitter attack was made upon him by the class who would benefit by the special juries. This unnatural portion of the clause was the shelter of Cornwall and the other scandalous creatures, who committed acts more loathsome than the beasts of the field, and yet these persons were defended by eminent Tory gentlemen, some of whom are now on the Judicial Bench, and some of whom now sit on the Treasury Bench in this House. Unnatural creatures are the only persons in Ireland who would agree with this provision puffed forward under the guise of fair play. It is no harm in Ireland, it is no dishonour to the Bar, or to anyone else, to defend these people. It is dishonourable to defend murderers, or people accused of conspiracy, but to defend unnatural offenders is one of the great privileges of the Bar in that country, although we know that these blackguards are infamous wretches that the tongue shrinks from describing in adequate language. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is looking very virtuous at this moment. No doubt, he is greatly shocked by what I am saying; but I am determined to tell the truth whether it annoys anybody or not. The more the truth annoys hon. Gentlemen opposite, the better I am pleased. All I have to say is that this clause is for the Freemason, Orange, and unnatural offenders class. I say it is to be passed in the interests of this gang. The Freemason gang in Dublin, and the Orange gang in Dublin, have availed themselves of it, and the unnatural offenders have availed themselves of it, and have secured joyful acquittal. I remember that the foreman of the special jury who tried the case of Fernandez, stated—at the conclusion of the trial, when an acquittal had been secured, that the prisoner left the dock without a stain on his character. All those men were the heroes of the special jurors in Dublin, and this will give the Committee some idea of who the individuals are whom the Crown looks upon as worthy of being appealed to on special juries. I suppose it was the Crown who advised that these men should be put on the special juries. So far as the pretence is concerned, that this clause is designed in the interests of justice and in the interest of liberty, we spurn it, and spit upon it and say it is well worthy of the source from whence it comes—for the Orangemen, as I say, availed themselves of it, the men who murdered Philip McGuire availed themselves of it, for it enables them to put men into the box who sympathize with their actions. It enables these people to put men into the box whom they have no necessity to challenge. I remember in one of these cases, when a man was challenged, the Judge took up an attitude, which I should think was adopted for the first time by one in his position, for he said— Who are you challenging here? You are challenging Mr. Mackintosh, the musicseller; why are you challenging him? Mr. Mackintosh, I may observe, has since become a bankrupt; therefore he was probably a very proper man to have upon a special jury. I would ask the Government why they did not procure the conviction of the murderer of Philip McGuire, whose head was smashed in with a stone in Monaghan for having voted for me? "Oh!" said one of these eminent gentlemen, "Philip McGuire had a thin skull." It was not a murder at all, because the man's skull was unusually thin. It is to be distinctly understood that, so far as we are concerned, you are moving this provision in the Bill in the interests of this class of persons to whom I refer, just as you have inserted in the measure a 6aving provision in regard to unlawful associations, in order to prevent Orange societies from being proclaimed when the Liberal Party comes into Office; for we know that, although you have given Parliament a veto in this matter, the House of Lords will undo whatever may be done in this Assembly. To say that you insert this provision in the Bill in order that people who hold popular opinions may obtain the protection of special juries, is simply to talk bosh and nonsense, and no one knows that better than the authors of this beautiful provision. I say this provision is a fraud. If the foul scoundrels whom rain was sent from Heaven to destroy are to be protected in a special manner, let it be done on the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland; do not let it be done by this Bill. If the Orange murderers are to go scot-free, let it be done by the flat of the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself shrinks from the responsibility of conniving at the escape of these scoundrels. He wishes them to find the opportunity for themselves, well knowing that they will succeed in doing so—well knowing that they will seek in the jury-box the protection of men whom, the moment you see them there, you know perfectly well the kind of verdict they will give. We can tell, the moment we see these special jurors in the box, what they will do. We can scent out their verdicts, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thinks he can, scent out the verdicts common jurors will give in the case of Nationalist prisoners. I say that this system of providing defence for these wretched and abominable offenders is devised for the sake of saving the Irish Attorney General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to take upon himself the loathsome task. It would give those in Dublin Castle the credit of complicity—of conniving at these offences. Some people place murder in one category, and would place these abominable offences to which I have adverted in another. For my own part, as I have said before, I would rather stand in the dock with a Joe Brady than be acquitted from the dock with Cornwall and Fernandez. I would rather be convicted of murder than have had part or lot in the crimes committed by Cornwall, your official, by Fernandez, your military gentleman, or by French, your detective director. It is to be remembered that these were your own officials, the men of whose skill you boasted, the men who have been in your employ for 20 or 30 years. We remember that French wrote a letter from prison saying that he had worked a case so close up to the wind that he had won the approval of Her Majesty's chief Crown Officials. I say you may denounce murderers in Ireland, but we have our opinion of the gentlemen who catch the murderers. For my part, I hold that the men who entrap the murderers are more loathsome and contemptible and desperate than the murderers themselves. I beg Sir, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, leave out "or a defendant."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

We, Sir, are now entering upon a new phase of the Government tactics, when we find that they do not even rise to defend the provisions of their own Bill.

An hon. MEMBER: Certainly not.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I ask, is this a reasonable proceeding on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has previously stated that this provision is to enable us to have equality. Yes, Sir, the sort of equality involved in the maxim, "Heads I win, tails you lose." Heads I win, if the Crown appeals to a special jury for the trial of a Nationalist. Tails you lose, if a prisoner applies for a special jury on his own behalf. The Nationalist will be convicted by a special jury; the Orangemen will get off. That is the sort of equality that this particular provision is intended to bring about. I maintain that this clause has two designs—first, to convict Nationalists; and, second, to get off Orangemen who assault and murder Nationalists. That is the object of this clause, and I, for one, protest not merely against the form of the clause, but against the pretence that it is adopted for the defence of public liberty in Ireland. I can well understand that, at any rate, the Irish portion of the officials on the Front Benches opposite have some hesitation in rising to defend this clause. They cannot attempt to deny one of the facts that have been set forth in support of the Amendment. They cannot attempt to deny that almost the only occasion on which this provision was made use of under the Crimes Act was when it was used by criminals of the kidney of French and Cornwall. These gentlemen made use of this provision in order to put into the jury-box to try them, men of the special jury class of the City of Dublin, their own friends and sympathizers, who of course, did the work which it was intended they should do, and sent the prisoners out free "without a stain upon their character." Now it may be fairly urged, as it has been urged to-night, that when you have a special jury set in motion on the fiat of a great public official like the Attorney General for Ireland, you have some guarantee that the arrangement will not be abused; but what guarantee have you in this case, where the special jury is set in motion, not on the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland, not with the sanction of any Court—because the Court is a mere marionette in the matter, which must grant the order that is asked for—not with the sanction or on the fiat of any official whatsoever, but simply at the request of the criminal himself, who may desire to be tried by his pals of the special jury class? I do protest against the clause in its present form, and I particularly protest against the silence of the Treasury Bench, who have not attempted to rise to defend this j most iniquitous provision.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny S)

We have arrived at a new stage of the discussion of this Bill, when the Treasury Bench, and those behind who call themselves a party of English Gentlemen, sit silent when an Amendment of this kind is moved and supported by such arguments as those we have heard, and they are, I presume, prepared by their votes to give protection in the special way proposed to a class of criminals whose character I will not venture to describe. We have disposed of that part of the clause by which the Judges of the Court are to be made mere executive officers to carry out the will of the Government and of Dublin Castle, and now we have arrived at the further stage when the High Court of Justice, as it is called in Ireland, has, upon the application of men such as have been described—men who have taken part in the government of Ireland, and there may be such men existing still—to act as protectors and abettors of these people in enabling them to escape from justice. I think that no Government could possibly be in a more degraded and horrible position. We see these men, Members of the Government sitting on the Bench opposite, absolutely dumb, asking the Committee to afford protection to a class of criminals who would be scouted out of any country on the face of the earth laying any sort of claim to a sentiment of Christianity.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland say what there is to be said in reply to the contention of hon. Members who have supported this Amendment? I, myself, am not at all sure that, from his own point of view, a perfectly satisfactory answer cannot be given, and I think the time of the Committee will be saved if it were given now.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I think if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the speech in which this Amendment was moved by the hon. Member opposite, which I cannot believe he did——

MR. JOHN MORLEY

I did.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then he cannot be surprised at no reply being made by the Government.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 98: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 194.)

AYES.
Addison, J. E. W.	Baden-Powell, G. S.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Baggallay, E.
Ambrose, W.	Baird, J. G. A.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.
	Balfour, G. W.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Barry, A. H. Smith-

Bartley, G. G. T.	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.
Bates, Sir E.
Baumann, A. A.	Fletcher, Sir H.
Beach, W. W. B.	Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Beadel, W. J.
Beaumont, H. F.	Forwood, A. B.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Fowler, Sir R. N.
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Fraser, General C. C.
Bentinck, W. G. C.	Fulton, J. F.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	Gedge, S.
	Gent-Davis, R.
Biddulph, M.	Gibson, J. G.
Bigwood, J.	Giles, A.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Gilliat, J. S.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Godson, A. F.
Bond, G. H.	Goldsmid, Sir J.
Bonsor, H. C. O.	Goldsworthy, Major-
Boord, T. W.	General W. T.
Bristowe, T. L.	Gorst, Sir J. E.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
	Gray, C. W.
Brookfield, A. M.	Grimston, Viscount
Burghley, Lord	Gunter, Colonel E.
Caine, W. S.	Gurdon, R. T.
Caldwell, J.	Hall, C.
Campbell, R. F. F.	Halsey, T. F.
Chamberlain, R.	Hambro, Col. C. J. T.
Charrington, S.	Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.
Coddington, W.	Hankey, F. A..
Coghill, D. H.	Hardcastle, E.
Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.	Hardcastle, F.
	Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.
Compton, F.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Heath, A. R.
Corbett, A. C.	Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Cranborne, Viscount	Heaton, J. H.
Crossley, Sir S. B.	Heneage, right hon. E.
Crossman, Gen. Sir W.	Herbert, hon. S.
Cubitt, right hon. G.	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Currie, Sir D.
Curzon, hon. G. N.	Hill, Colonel E. S.
Dalrymple, C.	Hill, A. S.
Davenport, H. T.	Hobhouse, H.
Davenport, W. B.	Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.
De Cobain, E. S. W.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.	Holmes, rt. hon. H.
De Worms, Baron H.	Hornby, W. H.
Dickson, Major A. G.	Howard, J.
Dimsdale, Baron R.	Howorth, H. H.
Dixon, G.	Hozier, J. H. C.
Donkin, R. S.	Hubbard, E.
Duncombe, A.	Hunt, F. S.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.	Isaacs, L. H.
	Isaacson, F. W.
Ebrington, Viscount	Jackson, W. L.
Egerton, hon. A. J. F.	Jarvis, A. W.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.	Kelly, J. R.
Elliot, hon. H. F. H.	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Elliot, G. W.	Kerans, F. H.
Elton, C. I.	Kimber, H.
Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. E. J.	King-Harman, right
	hon. Colonel E. R.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.
Field, Admiral E.	Knightley, Sir R.
Fielden, T.	Knowles, L.
Finch, G. H.	Lafone, A.
Finch - Hatton, hon. M. E. G.	Lambert, C.
	Lawrance, J. C.

Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.	Puleston, J. H.
Lees, E.	Quilter, W. C.
Legh, T. W.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Lewis, Sir C. E.	Rankin, J.
Lewisham, right hon. Viscount	Rasch, Major F. C.
	Reed, H. B.
Llewellyn, E. H.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Long, W. H.	Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.
Low, M.	Robertson, W. T.
Lowther, hon. W.	Robinson, B.
Lowther, J. W.	Ross, A. H.
Macartney, W. G. E.	Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.
Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.
	Sidebotham, J. W.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Sidebottom, T. H.
Maclean, J. M.	Sinclair, W. P.
Maclure, J. W.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
M'Calmont, Captain J.	Smith, A.
Malcolm, Col. J. W.	Spencer, J. E.
Mallock, R.	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Marriott, right hon. W. T.	Stanley, E. J.
	Sykes, C.
Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-	Talbot, J. G.
	Tapling, T. K.
Matthews, rt. hon. H.	Taylor, F.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Temple, Sir R.
Mayne, Admiral R. C.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Mills, hon. C. W.	Townsend, F.
Milvain, T.	Trotter, H. J.
Morgan, hon. F.	Verdin, E.
Morrison, W.	Vernon, hon. G. R.
Mount, W. G.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. E.	Watson, J.
	Webster, Sir R. E.
Mulholland, H. L.	Webster, R. G.
Muntz, P. A.	White, J. B.
Murdoch, C. T.	Whitley, E.
Newark, Viscount	Whitmore, C. A.
Noble, W.	Wilson, Sir S.
Norris, E. S.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Northcote, hon. H. S.	Wolmer, Viscount
Norton, R.	Wood, N.
Paget, Sir R. H.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Parker, C. S.	Wroughton, P.
Pelly, Sir L.	Young, C. E. B.
Plunket, right hon.
	TELLERS.
Plunkett, hon. J. W.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Pomfret, W. P.	Walrond, Col. W.H.
Powell, F. S.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Conybeare, C. A. V.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Cremer, W. R.
	Crossley, E.
Acland, A. H. D.	Dillon, J.
Acland, C. T. D.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Allison, R. A.	Ellis, J. E.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Ellis, T. E.
Blane, A.	Evelyn, W. J.
Broadhurst, H.	Evershed, S.
Buxton, S. C.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro-
Byrne, G. M.	Finucane, J.
Cameron, C.	Foley, P. J.
Cameron, J. M.	Fox, Dr. J. F.
Campbell, Sir G.	Fuller, G. P.
Campbell, H.	Gill, T. P.
Carew, J. L.	Gladstone, H. J.
Chance, P. A.	Haldane, R. B.
Clark, Dr. G. B.	Harrington, E.
Cobb, H. P.	Hayden, L. P.
Connolly, L.	Hayne, C. Seale-
Conway, M.	Healy, M.

Healy, T. M.	O'Doherty, J. E.
Hooper, J.	O'Hanlon, T.
Hoyle, I.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Hunter, W. A.	Picton, J. A.
Jacoby, J. A.	Pinkerton, J.
Kenny, C. S.	Plowden, Sir W. C.
Lalor, R.	Power, P. J.
Lawson, Sir W.	Power, R.
Lawson, H. L. W.	Priestley, B.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.	Provand, A. D.
	Pyne, J. D.
Lewis, T. P.	Roberts, J.
Lyell, L.	Rowlands, J.
Macdonald, W. A.	Rowntree, J.
MacNeill, J. G. S.	Russell, E. R.
M'Arthur, A.	Schwann, C. E.
M'Arthur, W. A.	Sheehan, J. D.
M'Cartan, M.	Shirley, W. S.
M'Carthy, J.	Stuart, J.
Mason, S.	Sullivan, D.
Molloy, B. C.	Summers, W.
Morgan, O. V.	Tanner, C. K.
Morley, rt. Hon. J.	Tuite, J.
Neville, R.	Waddy, S. D.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.	Wallace, R.
Nolan, J.	Wardle, H.
O'Brien, J. F. X.	Wayman, T.
O'Brien, P.
O'Connor, A.	TELLERS.
O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)	Biggar, J. G.
O'Connor, T. P.	Sheil, E.

Question put, "That the words 'or a defendant' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 94: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

I now claim to move "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."

THE CHAIRMAN

There remain on the Paper several Amendments to the words of the clause, and several Provisoes to be added to the clause. Some of these have been decided by the Divisions already taken, and, therefore, will not come on for discussion. None of the remaining Amendments to the words of the clause are of sufficient importance to demand discussion; but out of the Provisoes, as far as I can ascertain on the very short examination I have been able to make, there remain two, or perhaps three, questions that might require some debate, although it is possible there may be no doubt as to what the result will be. Amendment No. 44, which gives to the defendant power to elect to be tried by a single Judge instead of by a special jury, is one which, perhaps, might bear discussion, although it cannot be conceived that such a power would be thrown on a Judge. The other Provisoes to which I have referred are 48 and 52, dealing with the question of challenges. I think, before the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," some opportunity should be allowed for the discussion of these proposals.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I think I should have an opportunity of moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I have already, on a previous Amendment, expressed my opinion that a jury composed exclusively of special jurors is not a fitting tribunal for the trial of prisoners coming from a class to which such jurors do not belong. After your expression of opinion, therefore, Mr. Courtney, I shall be very brief, and will simply express a hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, which is based upon the prevalent practice in Scotland.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, leave out "special jury," and insert "jury of which one-third shall be special jurymen."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

After the expression of opinion by the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) I think we ought to act upon it. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend behind me (Sir George Campbell) is one which might on other occasions lead to a discussion of a useful character; but, as we object entirely to this Bill, it is not expedient to attempt to amend it with a view to reforming the whole of the jury system. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I have no wish to press the Amendment to a Division; I am content to leave it in the hands of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

No; I do not wish to withdraw it, but to leave it in the hands of the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

After your expression of opinion Mr. Courtney, I will not move Amendment No. 36 which stands in my name. In regard to Amendment No. 44, I am sorry it should have drawn an expression of opinion from you; but I must say that I think it only reasonable if a prisoner regards his jury with disfavour that he should have the option of being tried by one Judge. There is no Judge so bad but you can put points to him in the full assurance that they will, at any rate, receive consideration; but in the case of a jury composed of 12 Orangemen the circumstances are very different. There is nothing so disheartening as attempting to put points to such a jury. It is like talking to the Treasury Bench. You cannot got them to reply to you except by means of the clôture. I simply propose that, if the prisoner elects not to be tried by the jury which has been empannelled, he shall have the option of throwing on the Judge the duty of trying him. You cannot say that Judges as a class are liable to intimidation. There is a precedent for my Amendment in the last Crimes Act, one of the provisions of which was to the effect that three Judges should act without the option of a jury, and without any intervention from the prisoner himself. It is an entire misnomer to call this body a jury; you ought to call it a trap-door or something of that kind. It is not a jury; it is 12 Orangemen. Under these circumstances, I submit that the prisoner ought to have the option of trial by one man of intelligence. The Judges are, at all events, paid to be intelligent, while the jurymen are not. Indeed, in the majority of cases, the jury are brought forward and selected as partizans; and yet after a prisoner has been convicted by them you will have the supporters of the Government going round and saying that he has been convicted after due processes of the law, and is, therefore, proved to be guilty. Nobody in Ireland will believe that prisoners convicted before such tribunals are guilty. If the prisoner says, "I ask to be tried by the Judge," then he will have been tried by his own tribunal. I do not assert that a prisoner in Ireland would often adopt this mode of procedure; for, as a rule, the Judges are distrusted. But we believe that there are some fair Judges in Ireland. For instance, there is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). He is most unfair in this House, but I would much rather be tried by him than by several of the present occupants of the Irish. Judicial Bench. "We shall doubtless be met by the argument that the responsibility ought not to be put on the Judge, and that, if that was so, the Judge must resign and sacrifice an income of £3,500 a-year. Well, let the Judges resign. There are plenty of men at the junior bar who would throw themselves into the breach. At any rate, there will be no lack of Judges to carry out this Amendment, which, in my judgment, is one that ought to be passed. The prisoner ought to have some alternative presented to him, instead of that of being tried by an Orange tribunal which might be composed of 12 agents or 12 landlords.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 14, after "jury," insfirt,—"Provided, that if such special jury shall have teen empannelled, the defendant may elect not to be tried by such jury, and the trial shall proceed then and there before the Judge sitting to try the case, whose finding shall be as effectual, to all intents and purposes, as would have been the finding of the jury before which the prisoner elected not to be tried."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

The hon. and learned Gentleman must see that the result of the Amendment would be entirely to undo the procedure in respect of special juries. Instead of giving the prosecution the power of having a special jury, it would enable the accused person to say that the case should not be tried by a special jury at all, but by the Judge without a jury. I do not mean to say that if this Amendment were passed Judges would not do their duty, or that under certain circumstances it would not be an advantage to have a criminal case tried by Judges; but I can hardly imagine a more extraordinary proposal than the one we have got here. In the first place, the accused person is to see the jury empannelled——

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is the whole point.

MR. HOLMES

And then, as a last resort, to say that he will be tried by the Judge without the jury. We have discussed this particular clause upon the question of special juries the entire evening, and this Amendment seems to me to be far from the spirit of what we have already done, and cannot be accepted.

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

In the course of the evening one of the main arguments on the Treasury Bench has been that the object of the clause is that a fair trial may be obtained, and the Attorney General is given the power under the clause to apply for a special jury in lieu of an ordinary jury. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland seems to think it extraordinary that if the accused person sees a jury empannelled which he believes is not likely to give him a fair trial he should then ask for what, in his opinion, would be fair; and, for this reason, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the Amendment an extraordinary one. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) this evening drew an analogy between certain cases in the Civil Courts and those under this Criminal Bill; but the right hon. and learned Attorney General must know that in civil actions, if you do not apply for a jury, you are tried by a single Judge—you have to apply for a jury to get one. Therefore, we have it there are cases tried in this country where you may be tried by a Judge without a jury, and these are cases identical with those to be tried under the provisions of this Bill. I cannot see why the Amendment is extraordinary, or one on which there should be any surprise. The Government desires that the Attorney General should have power to change the proceedings in Ireland to obtain a fair trial. The Attorney General is able to see the panel of the common jury before making his selection of the special jury; and why, after the accused has seen the special jury, whom he believes to be a jury not likely to give him a fair trial, is there anything extraordinary, or to be surprised at, that the accused in that case should ask for a trial which would be, in the words of the Bill "more fair?" That which is demanded in this Amendment is that which exists in this country in all civil actions.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think it would be gross blasphemy to alter the old form of trial by which a man called to plead put himself on God and the country, and that a prisoner should be called upon to place himself in those words before a special jury. I think it is only fair and reasonable that an Irish peasant should be entitled to appeal from 12 landlords or half-pay captains, their religious and political enemies. This, alone, is sufficient to recommend the Amendment. But we have another reason. In the Act of 1882, that has been so often quoted, it was enacted that a number of crimes specified in the Act should be tried before a tribunal of three Judges selected by the Lord Lieutenant. This is a very strong ease in favour of the Amendment, because, under this Amendment, a prisoner would elect of his own accord to go to the Judge. I would rather be tried by the devil himself out of hell than by a jury of 12 landlords.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must pay more attention to the decencies of debate.

MR. CHANCE

I am quite ready to withdraw the expression; but I merely expressed my opinion that no tribunal is so utterly vile, unjust, and corrupt as a jury of 12 Irish landlords. If that is irregular I regret it, for the sake of the Rules of this House.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I am not surprised the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland should refuse the Amendment, nor am I surprised at the reason. We listened at an earlier period of the debate to a statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) that the Government wanted to give equal rights to the prisoner and the prosecutor; and, if that is so, surely we are met with arguments without a shadow or a shade of ground for them. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said it would be unheard of and unusual that the prisoner should have the right, after seeing the jury empannelled, to appeal from that jury to a Judge. But it is not customary in this country to take away the chance of a prisoner by bringing him from his own country and placing him for trial before a class of men inflamed by political passions and then packing a decidedly hostile jury. Therefore, if our proposition is unusual, surely it is much less strained and unusual than the proposition of the Government in this Bill? But what had the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to say in answer to our statement? Does he mean to say it is a dangerous preference to give to an Irish prisoner to leave his case in the hands of an Irish Judge? Does he not know that nothing but the dire experience we have had of the tin-scrupulous character of packing juries would have induced us to propose the Amendment at all? Do the Government adhere to the proposition that when a prisoner considers his case so desperate, and sees the jury box occupied by men who, as I might say, are thirsting for his blood, they would deny to the unfortunate wretch the right of appealing from the jury to the hands of a Judge rather than trust to a jury whose verdict is a foregone conclusion? And, talking of this, I am not trusting to my own judgment, for what did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland say in a previous debate upon this matter? He said in an unguarded moment—I recollect his statement— It is very difficult at present, in the political temper in which Ireland is, to empannel a jury that would give a fair verdict, so high is political passion. But that is equally true on both sides of the case. What he admittted was, that political passion ran so high on both sides that no matter what side you took the jury from the verdict was a foregone conclusion; and, that being his contention, you deny the right to the prisoner of appealing to the Judge. I say in this as in many other discussions in regard to which complaint is made of prolongation, that they are prolonged because we are not met fairly; we are denied the concession we ask; but no argument is brought forward why it should be denied us. The right hon. and learned Attorney General did not give a single reason for denying it, and we are met simply with flat denial.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

It is very hard to please the Treasury Bench in drawing up Amendments. Sometimes we venture to pass strictures upon the occupants of the Judicial Bench, and we are then met with rebukes; but when we draw up an Amendment that would enable a prisoner in certain cases when put upon his trial to elect to be tried by a member of the Judicial Bench in Ireland we are told that the Judicial Bench is not considered good enough to perform such a duty. What we claim is this—that when a prisoner saw the jury box packed with 12 persons whom he knew would convict him, he should have the right of saying—"I will not be tried by a gentleman on the jury; I will be tried by the Judge who is sitting before me, and in whom I have more confidence than in the 12 gentlemen on the jury." The right hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to imagine there was something unheard of and extraordinary in the notion that a prisoner should have that right; but I cannot see anything extraordinary at all in it. What are the facts? Why do the Government tell us that they have no confidence in the existing tribunal? Because, they say, the common jurors in Ireland either sympathize with the class of crime, or are intimidated from bringing in just and impartial verdicts. No charge of that kind can be made against the members of the Judicial Bench; and, it cannot be alleged that the Government have no confidence in the members of the Judicial Bench; and, that being so, I ask what good reason can be given for denying the prisoner this small privilege of appealing, as I may call it, from a jury formed of 12 of his enemies to a member of the Irish Judicial Bench? I cannot see anything so extraordinary in the proposal. We have already had a precedent in English legislation for handing over trials of this kind, not to one Judge, but to three; and, that being so, I do not think this Amendment is open to the charge that is made in respect of it. It really seems, no matter what is the character of the Amendment, if it is proposed from this quarter of the House the Government are determined to oppose it, and to take a negative attitude, no matter how reasonable it may be.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 227: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 196.)

MR. A. H. D. ACLAND (York, W.E., Rotherham)

I was glad to hear your ruling a short time ago, Mr. Courtney, because had it not been for such ruling the important question of what is sometimes called jury packing could not have been raised, now; indeed, it could not have been raised during the discussion on any part of this Bill. This is a Bill to amend the Criminal Law, and it is, also, a Bill which is to be of a permanent character. It surely would be almost a scandal that a point of this kind should not be subjected to at least a brief discussion. This Amendment seems to me to be specially important because you have a limited class of jurors in any ease, and it would be a very small concession to make that the Crown and the accused person should stand on a level in the matter of challenge. Now, the comparison of England has often been made, but everybody knows that the practice of making jurors stand aside in England is on a totally different footing altogether from what it is in Ireland. Even the Government organs in Ireland have said that trial by jury for political or quasi-political offences is a sort of make-believe and pretence, and often jurors have petitioned in favour of an amendment of the law. We know that after a recent case at Sligo the non-Catholic jurors petitioned in favour of an amendment of the law, declaring that the present state of things tends to promote social discord. The real point is that, considering the limited number of jurors which the Government have to deal with in this case, they might reasonably make an exception. Probably, as the qualification is so high, it would be but few who would be affected in this particular way, but still it would be worth while to modify the law in the way I suggest. We have been told that the object of this clause is to secure a fair trial, and we may simply ask the Government, do they intend to remove, as they may by this small concession, what is a scandal, and what has been a scandal for years in Ireland, besides being a cause of constant irritation; will they grant this small concession in favour of the poorer class of the Irish people who may be prosecuted under this Act, and whose interests they are constantly telling us they desire to serve? I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 14, after "jury," add, "Provided always, that upon the trial of any person under this section, the Crown shall not have the right to require any juror to stand aside, but shall be entitled to challenge peremptorily six jurors if the trial be for a misdemeanour, and twenty jurors if the trial be for a felony or treason.'''—(Sir. A. H. D. Acland.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

It is impossible for us to accept this Amendment. We could very well understand an Amendment of this kind being proposed if we were discussing a general Jury Bill; but, as we have said over and over again, we ask the House to enable us to have a special jury under the circumstances that are mentioned in this particular clause, but we do not profess to reform generally trial by jury. The law in England and Ireland, with reference to the power of the Crown to order jurors to stand aside, is precisely the same. The Crown has the right, under the Common Law, to exercise this right until the panel is exhausted. That is a power which has been exercised by successive Attorney Generals most fairly and most justly. In moving this Amendment the hon. Member (Mr. A. H. D. Acland) appears to assume that this power has been exercised in an improper way. I deny that assertion altogether. This power has never been exercised in Ireland in later times except with the object of getting a fair and impartial jury to try a case, and the result of the exercise of the power has been to get fair and impartial jurors. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite may say "Oh, oh!" and may jeer; but I ask them, in what particular case was a jury empannelled by any person representing the Crown in Ireland that acted unfairly towards a prisoner? I know that in this House many cases have been cited by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite; but it has been shown again and again that the juries found verdicts in pursuance of the charges of the learned Judges, and that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdicts. If this power has been exercised as far as the memory of man goes back fairly and justly, and if the result of the exercise of this power has been to empannel juries of fair and impartial men, it is as well that the right should be retained.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

Of all the extraordinary answers which have been given by the Government in the course of these discussions, I think the answer just given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is the most extraordinary. This clause makes the greatest change that has ever taken place in the history of this country in regard to trial by jury. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware that this is a clause which materially affects the clause in Magna Charta as to trial by jury. I ask the attention of the Attorney General for England to this point. I have always understood that the clause in Magna Charta referring to trial by jury means that a man shall be tried by his equals. Now, this clause distinctly proposes trial which is not trial by a man's equals. I am truly astonished at the reception which has been accorded this Amendment by the Attorney General for Ireland. I have no doubt that before long we shall hear cases cited of miscarriage of justice at the hands of special juries in Ireland, of whom the Attorney General for Ireland speaks so favourably. I have not sat very long in this House, but I have heard many cases cited in which it is quite clear special juries in Ireland have acted unfairly and partially.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I think it is quite evident the Committee is absolutely unaware of the state of the facts in Ireland. The Government seem to want not trial by special jury, but trial by the residuum of the special jurors. In the first place, the Lord Lieutenant is empowered to take what panel he likes. In the Act of 1882 he had to take 200 men, and out of that number find 12 men. Practically, the challenges were of a limited character; but even under that section the Crown challenged; at the trial of Joseph Poole, 70 men, and one juryman said afterwards, when he asked, "Why did you commit Poole when you knew he was innocent?" said, "Why, we should have convicted him had it been proved he was in Australia." At the trial of Michael Welsh 40 jurors were challenged, and I defy any man who reads the evidence of the trial to say there was sufficient evidence to hang a cat on. Michael Welsh did not understand the language in which the evidence was given. The evidence was translated by a policeman, and Welsh went before his God protesting in the only language he understood his innocence. In the Maamtrasna case anyone would have convicted on the evidence; it was proved afterwards, however, that the evidence was perjured. I always said the jury acted properly on the evidence, but in that case you challenged an extraordinary number of men to try and convict men whom we believed to be innocent. Take the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners; we are told the jury followed the direction of the Judge. Nothing of the kind; they fol- lowed it when it was in favour of conviction. Judge Lawson, one of our greatest foes, charged the jury in the case of one man, named Bernard—I cannot recall his surname—in favour of an acquittal, but the jury convicted the prisoner. Lord Spencer released the man after six weeks. In the case of a man, named Geoghan, the jury did not follow the direction of the Judge. The challenges in this case were enormous. To tell me that you ought to have the right to reduce the panel to a residuum is absurd. In the County of Kerry, the most disturbed district in Ireland, you have only 200 special jurors. That shows how limited the character of the class of special juries is; one man in 30 is a special juror, and in the face of this limited, select, primrose class you are still to have the power of cutting the panel down by the system of unlimited challenge. I am told this is English law. If it is English law it is not English practice, and we want the English practice. It is unfair to this House to say that we are getting English law in this matter. In the face of the facts, can you wonder if by-and-bye what you call law is not respected? No jury was ever packed or found fault with for convicting a prisoner until the Crimes Act was passed. Under that Act you invented a special convicting jury, and then an unfortunate man was cruelly attacked near his own house, a terrible occurrence which shocked everybody. When you put up 12 men as sub-gods, as men who are to uphold law and order in Ireland; and when it is said to the people, here are your enemies, here are the friends of the Government; when the entire patronage and power of the country is given into the hands of a gang of thieves; when these men are paraded before the crowd, can you wonder that afterwards these men are Boycotted or intimidated? You yourselves are playing for crime in Ireland—you are devising the best method of provoking crime in Ireland. I do not mean to say that crime will take place, because it is impossible to predicate what will happen when one does not know the exact effect on the Irish people of the fact that the great body of the Liberal Party is standing by the Irish nation? If this Bill were being passed under ordinary circumstances, I do not hesitate to say you would have a large crop of crime within a month of its passing; but now the people see they have obtained the sympathy of a large mass of the English people, and in the desire to cultivate still further that sympathy, it may be that you will not have the crime in Ireland which, under other circumstances, you would have. You talk in this matter about special juries, but it is not a special jury after all; it is a jury composed of 12 men selected from the special jurors, and these 12 men the enemies of the people. We offered to go before a Select Committee of our enemies in this House, because we were so satisfied nothing could be proved against us. That was our own option, however. But take the case of a man who is brought up, and knowing this Bill has been passed by the foul combination which enables it to be passed—["Oh, oh!"] I am speaking of the combination of Members—I will say, if you like, unholy combination. Take the case of a man who is brought up, and who sees 12 men put into the box for the purpose of convicting him. If you have unjust convictions, as you undoubtedly will have, I ask you will it improve the temper of the people? What will be the effect upon the people of carrying a man from one end of Ireland, for instance, to Dublin to be tried, and probably to be convicted? Perhaps the people of his district will not believe him to be guilty. They will be inclined to take the law into their own hands, and then the English people, not knowing the facts, will be terribly surprised to learn that there is crime in the district to which the man belongs. The people of this country will not be able to trace crime to its source; and the occurrence of crime will be used as an additional argument against us. There is no option, under this section, but for the Court to grant a special jury when the application is made for one. You give the prisoner no chance; but you make his conviction as certain as the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland. I say this is a state of things which it would not be possible for the Tory Party to bring about if they had not support upon the Opposition Benches. When the matter comes to be considered soberly the blame of this section will, undoubtedly, be laid not so much at the door of the Tory Party as at the door of the Liberal Unionists, who are the real people who are responsible for the passing of this Bill.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

It is monstrous for the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) to stand up and deliberately assert that the power of packing juries has not been used improperly. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not know perfectly well that for the last 30 years the Irish Executive have never failed to use this power in the most improper and indecent way in every political trial? Every man in this House knows it perfectly well. What were the words of The Dublin Daily Express, the organ of the landlord party in Ireland, when commenting on this Bill? I can recall the words very well. The Dublin Daily Express said—"This is a time for plain speaking. Trial by jury in Ireland for many years has been more or less of a make-believe, and inasmuch as it is now impossible to have recourse to the various devices by which the Government got satisfactory juries in the past, we must have some new legislation to enable the work to be done." This is the commentary of The Dublin Daily Express; that organ was frank enough—it admitted freely that trial by jury in Ireland had been a make-believe. But the Attorney General for Ireland, when he comes before an English audience, finds it necessary to put on a cloak of decency and respectability, and deny that juries are packed in Ireland. Does he forget altogether how he got one of his own henchmen to prevent a discussion on this question in this House? He challenges us to bring instances in which juries have acted improperly; but when I made an attempt to bring forward instances my mouth was closed—when I had all the evidence in my possession my mouth was closed by the most discreditable trick possible. It was plainly proved to the people of England, who, I venture to say, take my side in the controversy, that the Government dreaded to go into the matter, and that it was manifestly a matter which ought to be fully discussed. You have just heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) of cases in which the juries were shamefully and disgracefully packed against prisoners. Since those cases we have had the Sligo case. Any one who has looked into that case must have been ashamed of the proceedings. Poor Catholic peasants, who had committed a crime, if crime it was, under great provocation and circumstances of the greatest cruelty, were dragged from their own County of Galway to the Winter Assizes at Sligo, and placed on their trial before juries composed of Orangemen, or composed at least of Protestants; 30 or 40 Catholics were ordered to stand aside for no other reason than that they professed the same religion as the prisoners. No effort was made to explain away or defend such action on the part of the Crown. The Attorney General for Ireland may say that the verdicts returned were true verdicts; but I venture to affirm that if such proceedings as took place at Sligo took place in England, Scotland, or Wales, no jury would convict. Every political case in Ireland is made an occasion for jury packing. I do not wish to go into particular cases. I might do so at considerable length—my own case would occupy me for an hour and a-half. True, in that case, the Crown failed, but that failure was not due to the fault of the Attorney General for Ireland. He did his best, and no more flagitious case of jury-packing ever took place. He packed the jury openly, and he failed to convict solely because he had not the power to go before a special jury specially drawn, but was obliged to take a common jury of Dublin. He did his best; his conduct on that trial was illegal and disgraceful in the highest degree; and yet he can stand up here and declare that the Crown has never used its power to pack a jury. The Attorney General for Ireland based part of his answer on an extraordinary proposition. He said the Amendment does not naturally grow out of the clause, because we are not proposing to reform the Jury Laws—we are simply dealing with a particular case. The Amendment only deals with particular cases in which you deprive a prisoner of the little protection he has in Ireland. It applies to no other cases. The Amendment does not propose to deal with the whole of the jury system, but only where you take away the little protection a prisoner has in his right to be tried by a common jury in the place where the venue ought to be laid. In this case, and in no other, will the Amendment affect the power of the Crown, which, notwithstanding what the Attorney General for Ireland says, everyone with experience knows is habitually used by the Crown most improperly in Ireland. No matter what the Attorney General for Ireland says about the law in Ireland being similar to that in England it is notoriously not the practice in England, though it is systematically the practice in Ireland. I do not believe the English people would submit for a moment to the packing of juries by the Government as they are packed in Ireland, much less when accompanied by the tremendous power of the change of venue. There is no use in mincing words on this matter. I was perfectly earnest in supporting the last Amendment before the Committee. The object and purpose of this clause is to place the political opponents of the Government on trial before men who would like to see us all dangling at the end of a rope. We hear this expression of their sentiments from conversations carried on in railway carriages and elsewhere, when they do not know that a member of the National Party is present. It is the truth. It is the talk of dinner tables; they express their feelings in common conversation, and say that if there were a rope round our necks they would like to pull at the other end. Is it reasonable to place us on trial—as we shall be placed on trial if this Bill passes—before men who use such language? Do you really mean to carry out such a system? Do you know what you are doing when you vote for such a clause? I am not exaggerating in the slightest degree when I tell you the effect of the clause. You are giving power to the Government—power they will use—to place us on trial before men who habitually use such language, who would convict us without a shadow of a shade of evidence, who would gladly, to use their own words, hold the end of a rope if our neck were at the other.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I recollect hearing some time ago, either from the Attorney General for Ireland or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a statement that no records were in existence from which the Government could give a Return to the House of the number of jurors challenged in agrarian cases, and I assume that it is in the belief that there is no such record in existence that we have had the state- ment that there has been no misuse of the power of challenge by the Government. I do not know if the record exists now—possibly it has been destroyed—but I know there was such a record, and I speak from a copy I have when I say that in Green Street in cases, some of them cases of murder and so forth, not bearing any definite political complexion, 60, 70, and in one case 72, jurors were ordered to stand aside, so that a jury might be obtained that could be relied upon for a conviction. In addition, I may mention a fact of which, possibly, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not aware, that a Government official is known as "Peter the Packer," and is a recognized practitioner in Green Street. Again, I may mention that a brief of the prosecuting counsel in a quasi-political trial has been obtained, and contains a list of jurors, and opposite some of the names is written the word "sturdy"—which means, I presume, that the man is reliable for a conviction—and opposite the names of other jurors who were challenged appears the letter "C," and it is a fact that each of these men was a Catholic. It is futile, then, for the Attorney General for Ireland to stand up here, little as some of the Committee know of Irish affairs, and say that the right of challenge has never been abused. The Attorney General for Ireland has some special knowledge and experience of his own in the case of the trial of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and some of his friends for advocating the Plan of Campaign, and I happened to be solicitor for some of the accused; and I may tell the Committee that, while all the accused taken together had six challenges, the Crown directed 28 men to stand aside, and in no single instance did they attempt to show that the juror was unfit for his duty by reason of bias or anything else. Of course, they did not gain a conviction, but it was not the fault of the prosecution. When I asked the question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland he refused to lay on the Table any record of the results of an inquiry I knew had been made as to the politics and qualifications of the gentlemen on the panel. He did not deny there had been such an inquiry. I am sure he would not deny it if he knew it to be the fact. It is known as a fact; and, that being so, the Committee must not be deceived into the idea that these powers have always been exercised in a reasonable spirit. If the Government retain this power to get rid of jurors who are biassed, then they have a very bad case, for there is nothing in the world to prevent a juror being "challenged for cause," and, using the facilities the Crown has to discover the previous record of a juror, there would be no difficulty in proving to a Crown Judge that a certain person was an improper person to be on the jury panel. But I may be reminded that in the prosecution of the hon. Member for East Mayo the Government failed to procure a verdict. I know the reason, and there can be no harm in stating it. There were two jurors of the same name, and pretty much of the same appearance, the one an Orangeman and the other a Catholic. The first juror called was promptly challenged, and while sitting in Court fell into conversation with his neighbour. Mr. Peter, the "Packer," cocking his eye round the Court, settled in his own mind this was the Nationalist; but he was mistaken, the Orangeman being directed to stand aside, the other man being put upon the jury. That is the reason why a conviction was not obtained. As an illustration of the class of men obtained for special juries, I may mention an anecdote or two. I recollect a conversation I had with a gentleman, a constituent of the Attorney General for Ireland. He knew me well, and had known me for years. He was a perfectly steady, sober man. I remember that in course of conversation he expressed his abhorrence of farmers who did not pay their rent, and when I asked what remedy he would apply to the state of things he recommended the shooting of the nearest priest, and the flogging of the farmers' wives and daughters. It is men of that stamp who get on the special jury panel of Dublin. Another anecdote I had from a counsel who prosecuted, of a man who was convicted of a murder upon evidence which, in the opinion of the counsel—a Conservative, a constituent of the Attorney General for Ireland, no friend of ours, Dr. Webb—was of the most flimsy character. He asked a juror how he could possibly convict a man on such evidence, and the juror replied he did not care a straw about the evidence; that he convicted the man for the purpose of making an example; and a second juror said that he was prepared to convict him if it had been proved the man was in America when the murder was committed. These are the jurors upon whom the Crown place reliance, and when I state these things on my own knowledge, or on the statement of a gentleman, no friend of ours, I ask the Committee to judge whether the Crown ought not to be required to show cause why a man should not be on a jury. They have Judges not unfavourable to them. Why, when you take the unfortunate peasant prisoner away from his peers to be tried by landlords, why not extend to him that fair play you always allow to a prisoner in England, challenging man for man until the six are exhausted, and then show cause why a juror should be excluded? Bad as the law is in Ireland, nothing can alienate the people more from it than to see the Crown thus playing with loaded dice. I trust we may get some support even from Members on the other side, and if we cannot break the silence on the other side, and get some reasons for the support of the clause, that they will follow us into the Lobby.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

Looking at the Returns that show each county and city special jury, I find that the statements of hon. Members who have supported the Amendment do not exaggerate the species of selection that goes on in Ireland. The agrarian question in Ireland is not a question of six or of 10 years old; it was strong in Ireland in 1872, when the Jury Act was passed; and I ask the attention of the Committee now to the distinction there drawn, in order to let them see what in 1872 was done for the purpose of preventing small farmers from having positions on juries. It shows that it was in the contemplation of the Government that the administration of justice should be in their hands. The qualification for common jurors is freeholders of £ 10. For leaseholders likely to fall into the hands of landlords it was doubled; but if a man might possibly have a leaning towards the tenant if he was not freeholder or tenant on lease, if he was a tenant from year to year, then the qualification was £40. This is with regard to common juries, and that is the class of persons that would be peers to the persons usually to be tried. But common juries are, under the Act of 1872, special juries with respect to persons charged with agrarian offences. To the special jury, as constituted under the Act of 1872, comes a Proviso, inserted at the instance of the late Lord O'Hagan, by which the qualification of a special juror is in some cases four, in some cases five times as much as the highest qualification of a freeholder. In Antrim, where a freeholder of £10——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is scarcely keeping to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I certainly would not have gone into this if I were not going to make my point, that there has been a process of selection going on to the absolute exclusion of all persons the Crown could have reasonable objection to; and, therefore, there is no claim by the Crown to an unlimited right of challenge. Step by step I was going to show, though, perhaps, rather tediously, how this had been done, and, in that sense, was referring to the origin of the Jury Act in Ireland. As I said at an earlier period in this Committee, the passing of the Jury Act was in consequence of the Sheriffs empannelling creatures of their own, and a self-working panel was established; but the effect has been that special juries are now prepared to try certain offences from among the very men whom the Sheriffs, when they had the power, selected. It is a modest proposal to ask that the Crown Prosecutor shall have the right of challenge limited to this specified amount in cases where there is no question of the juror being biassed, or disqualified by prejudice. If the hon. Member had proposed that the right of challenge should be unlimited on the part of the accused, and limited on the part of the Crown, he would have appealed with strong reason to the sympathies of fair-minded men; but when he asks that there shall be the same right on either side, then, having regard to the history of juries in Ireland, to the process of selection that has gone on, and to the manner in which the right of challenge has been abused, it is a modest and reasonable proposal. I would ask the Committee to remember this—that if ever a question arises between landlord and tenant to be decided by civil action before a Judge and jury, counsel invariably recommend the landlord by all means to serve notice for a special jury, saying that is the way to try agrarian disputes by civil action. Now, if they are to get this for the trial of criminal cases, nothing has ever been passed in any Coercion Bill so completely reversing all my ideas of fair play as to allow this unlimited right of challenge in addition to allowing these special juries.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 218: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 197.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I certainly do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee at this late hour (12.35); but in one word I desire to say, before this clause passes, that I protest against it most earnestly, in the name, at any rate, of one part of the United Kingdom—of my own constituency. They, I know, feel that a clause like this will remove trial by jury from the influence of the average opinion of a district and place it in the hands of the landlord class. We are, by this clause, removing trials for alleged offences in a proclaimed district from the jurisdiction of the average opinion of that district, and are putting them within the jurisdiction of average landlordism, which is, in other words, the average opinion of a particular class. How we can expect to produce peace and contentment in Ireland by imposing upon the people of that country a measure which we should not tolerate ourselves without insurrection by violence surpasses my comprehension. Never in the history of this country has any such oppressive law been passed without producing a spirit of violent rebellion; and if it does not produce this in Ireland, it is only because of the extreme smallness of the population, and the disarmed weakness of the people. On these grounds I most earnestly protest against the passing of this clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I wish. Sir, to suggest to the Chief Secretary, as he was out of Order in making a statement upon this clause earlier in the Sitting, that perhaps he would like to make it now. He would be perfectly in Order now. He may not be aware of that fact; therefore I rise for the purpose of letting him know.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 83: Majority 128.—(Div. List, No. 198.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I beg to move, Sir, that you do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.