SPECIAL JURY AND REMOVAL OF TRIAL.

HC Deb 09 June 1887 vol 315 cc1442-554

Clause 4 (Change of place of trial).

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, after "district," to insert— And there has previously been a trial for such crime in the county or borough in which the same was committed, at which trial the jury has disagreed, said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent, as far as possible, the extreme hardship in this provision. It will be in the mind of the Committee that we have already passed Clause 3 which provides that where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district has been found, or a defendant has been committed for trial, 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 the application of the Attorney General or by the defendant, direct that the trial shall be a special jury. That being so, it is only reasonable, if the Government are to have the power of changing the venue in the way suggested by this clause, that there should be some provision to restrict the power to change the venue to cases in which there has already been a trial and the jury have disagreed. Let me point out that, as the clause now stands, the Executive will be able to drag prisoners from one end of Ireland to the other—from the County of Kerry, for instance, to Ulster and vice versâ. There was a somewhat similar provision in the Crimes Act of 1882, but the only case, as far as I believe, in which it was exercised, is one with which the Committee will be familiar owing to the constant allusions which have been made to it in this House—namely, a case in which a number of Irish-speaking Connemara peasants were removed from Mayo to be tried in Cork, and in that case there had previously been a disagreement on the part of the jury. Surely it is only reasonable to ask the Government, before we give them the powers provided in this section, that there should be circumstances which will bear some parallel with those of the Act of 1882, and that it shall be shown that some attempt has already been made to secure the administration of justice in the county where the offence was committed. I entreat Her Majesty's Advisers to give a fair consideration to the reasonable Amendment I now propose.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 23, after the word "district," insert the words "and there has previously been a trial for such crime in the county or borough in which same was committed, at which trial the jury has disagreed."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

The Amendment moved by the hon. Member is to the effect that there must have been a previous trial and a disagreement on the part of the jury before the venue can be changed—in fact, that there has been an abortive trial. The object of the Government is to provide that the venue may be changed, because there is reason to suspect that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the district in which the crime has been committed, and if we restrict the operation of the clause to cases in which there has been a previous trial our object might be altogether defeated. for these reasons we cannot assent to the Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to forget the powers which the Government will have of ordering persons to stand by whose motives they have reason to suspect. I think it will be altogether impossible, under such circumstances, to place 12 men in the box who would agree to acquit a prisoner. Such an apprehension is altogether preposterous, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have a very low opinion indeed of the intelligence of this Committee, or he would not venture to make such a suggestion. I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that an abortive trial is a most unsatisfactory thing. It is most desirable, when a man has been tried by a jury, that the jury should find whether he is guilty or innocent; but we must not lose sight of the extraordinary powers which are given to the Government by Section 3. Under these powers, I cannot see that there is the slightest danger of such a mishap as an abortive trial occurring. Unfortunately, however, notwithstanding the low estimate which the Attorney General for Ireland seems to have of the intelligence of the Assembly he was addressing, the Government are sufficiently powerful to pass their Bill by the use of the closure.

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

All that is asked in this Amendment is that a trial shall have taken place in the district where an offence has been committed, before the venue can be changed to any other part of the country. It has already been pointed out what was done in the case of the Mayo conspiracy. In that case a trial took place where the offence was committed, and, that trial having proved abortive, the venue was changed to Cork. The result was a second disagreement, but the prisoners were put upon their trial again, and, having to go to Mayo in order to bring up their relatives and witnesses, they certainly had not a fair chance of obtaining an acquittal. It is quite evident from the non-acceptance of the Amendment that the Government have no desire to procure even an appearance of justice. Such provisions as these must destroy all confidence on the part of the people in the administration of the law. If the Government really desire to make progress with their Bill, they would show a disposition to accept reasonable Amendments of this kind. But it appears to me that they have no desire even to observe the slightest semblance of justice.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

In reference to the Amendment No. 16 on the Paper, standing in my name, the object of which is to extend the jurisdiction to any division of the High Court, I do not propose, at this stage, to move it, because I think the matter may be more adequately dealt with on the 11th clause, which defines the mode of procedure for offences against the Bill. Nor do I intend to move the Amendment No. 18, which gives a discretionary power to the High Court, because I think that that Amendment is covered by No. 19 which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for England.

SIR CHAELES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

My Amendment proposes to leave out all the words of the first sub-section from the word "Ireland," in line 25.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) which will come before that.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

I propose to move, in page 3, line 24, an Amendment to provide that the application for the change of venue shall be made in open Court. I think that it is necessary to provide that such an application should not be made in Chambers, but that it should be made in public, so that the nature of the application would be quite open and clearly understood.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, after the word "application," to insert the words "in open Court."—(Mr. Mac Neill.)

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

THE ATTOENEY GENEEAL FOR IEELAND (Mr. HOLMES) (Dublin University)

the Government feel bound to oppose the Amendment, which would introduce an entirely new practice in these cases. It is our intention to follow the usual course of practice.

MR. MAC NEILL

All I desire is that the public should be able to judge of the propriety of the application as well as the Attorney General.

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

This opens an entirely new question. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he is to go in private to a Judge of the High Court, and perhaps, sitting over a glass of punch, apply for an order, and that the public are to have no information about it? We know that at present barristers are able to go to the Judges privately in regard to some of the matters concerning the procedure of the Court; but it is a monstrous proposition to provide that a serious application of this nature in questions affecting the lives and liberties of the Irish people should be made privately, even to a Vacation Judge.

MR. HOLMES

I do not suppose it is at all likely that an application would be made to a Judge over a glass of punch; but what I say is, that a Motion of this kind may be made with perfect propriety if it is made in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Court, and the Government, therefore, cannot consent to alter the clause.

MR. MAC NEILL

We ought to be able to judge of the propriety of the application as well as the Attorney General. The words "The High Court" do not mean the High Court of Justice sitting with all the dignity of Judges on the Bench; but it means a single Judge sitting in his own chambers, in his own study, and acting at any time of the day or night. Under such circum- stances, is the Attorney General or his representative to be at liberty to walk in and obtain an order by simply saying—"See, Judge; give me this order." Such a provision means a total absence of any public investigation in reference to the application, and there is a possibility that an. order may be given for a change of venue, which would not have been granted if there had been notice given to the public. If a Motion were made in open Court it would also prevent an appeal to the High Court to discharge or vary the order. I fail to see why the proceedings under this Coercion Bill should not be fair and above-board, and the Irish Members are determined to do their best to prevent anything being done in a surreptitious or underhand manner. The Attorney General knows perfectly well that this is to be a secret application. The definition of the expression "The High Court" is simply that it is to mean the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and I challenge the Attorney General to tell the Committee what the real object of this provision is.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR CHARLES BUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

I have now to move in page 3, line 25, to leave out after the word "Ireland," the following words:— And upon his certificate that he believes that a more fair and impartial trial can he had at a Court of Assize in same county to be named in the certificate, shall make an order as of course that the trial shall he had at a Court of Assize in the county named in the certificate. The defendant or any defendants, if more than one, may in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time apply to the High Court to discharge or vary any such order for the removal of a trial, upon the ground that the trial can be more fairly and impartially had in a county other than the county named. in the order of removal, and thereupon the High Court may order that the trial shall be had in that county in which it shall appear that the trial can be mo3t fairly and impartially had. If the Committee consent to the omission of those words, I propose to substitute words to provide that the High Court, on application by or on behalf of the Attorney General for Ireland, Or of the defendant, may for good cause order that the trial shall be had in some other county or borough. Now, the Government, in framing the Bill, have obviously thought that this question of the change of venue may be one of very great consequence, and I am quite prepared to admit that if it is of great consequence in the interests of the Crown, which interests are supposed to be and ought to be the interests of the public, it is equally a matter of great interest to the accused. It is a very serious matter that, without any safeguard or protection, a man charged with an offence, not according to the ordinary Criminal Law and the administration of the ordinary Criminal Law, shall be deprived of the venue in which the offence has been committed, and that his trial shall be removed to an entirely different place altogether, away from his friends, and where it may be difficult for him to procure evidence which may be of the greatest possible importance to him. The Government, in the way in which they have framed the clause, show that they consider the matter to be one of consequence; but as the clause stands the question is to be decided on the mere ipse dixit and at the will of the Attorney General in the first instance. All that the Attorney General has to do is to instruct some counsel or solicitor on his behalf to make an application to the High Court, and on his certificate that he believes a more fair and impartial trial can be had in some other place than that in which it would in the ordinary course be had, the learned Judge before whom the application is made is, according to the clause as it stands, entirely deprived of any judicial discretion whatever in the matter. By this clause the Judge is bound to make the order on an application being made to him, and on the production of the certificate of the Attorney General that he thinks it right a change of venue should take place. Now, I say that this is an unbecoming course of proceeding with regard to the Judge himself. I know it may be said that there is a right of appeal given by the next part of the clause. The next part of the clause says that after an order of the Judge has been made upon an ex parte, or it may be upon a secret application, and under circumstances which may prevent any information being given to the Judge upon which he might be able to exercise his judgment, the defendant against whom the order has already been made shall have conceded to him the right within a prescribed time, and in a prescribed manner, to apply to the Court to vary the order. Now, I want to know what is to be said against the proposition contained in. my Amendment, which is the natural, the simple, the straightforward, and the just principle to be adopted in such a matter—namely, that the original application shall be made by the Attorney General, or by the defendant, in open Court, and that thereupon the Court may, for good reason, order that the trial shall be had in some other county or borough. What can be the object of resisting so reasonable an Amendment? If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has no desire to prejudge the question in accordance with any suggestion which may have been made to him, I would ask him, in fairness and in reason, what is to be said against that proposition? If the Attorney General desires to change the venue, let him make an application; but let it be made in open Court on due notice, and let him satisfy the Court that he has good grounds for making it. In that ease, no doubt, it would be granted; but if he is unable to show good grounds, why should he have his order upon an ex parte statement, without the persons accused having an opportunity of showing cause against it? Of course, if the Government intend to offer a non possumus to every Amendment proposed, whether that Amendment is reasonable or unreasonable, or in the direction of justice or not, it would save a good deal of time if they would say so at once. Personally, I repudiate altogether that the Chief Secretary means to convey any such desire, and if not, then I claim that no answer whatever can be made to this Amendment. I know that a great many things have been stated inside this House, and still more outside, in regard to the obstruction of this Bill; but I am certain that there has not been a single Amendment advanced from this Bench for which the strongest reasons have not been adduced. For my own part, I have not voted for one, nor spoken on behalf of one, which I did not consider to be of a substantial and bonâ fide character. If they do not wish to have the whole force of public opinion directed against this wretched measure the Government ought to evince some desire to maintain, at least, an appearance of fairness, and to consider favourably proper and reasonable Amendments.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, to leave out all the words after the word "Ireland," to the end of line 37, and insert the words, "or of the defendant, may for good cause order that the trial shall be had in some other county or borough,"—[Sir Charles Russell,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'and upon his certificate that a' stand part of the Clause."

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

My hon. and learned Friend has called upon the Chief Secretary to answer the appeal which has been made to him; but as there are technicalities which are connected with the matter which it is desirable to explain my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken under the idea that some suggestion has been made that the Amendments moved from the Front Bench opposite have been of an obstructive character. Now, Sir, we are far from entertaining any feeling of that kind, and, so far as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Amendments which he has moved have been of a reasonable character, and have been Amendments which, beyond all doubt, require discussion. Indeed, I have all along admitted not only the reasonable character of the Amendments from the Front Bench, but also that many of those which have been proposed in other quarters have been reasonable. The present Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman unquestionably raises a subject which it is desirable to have discussed and decided by the Committee; and, therefore, as briefly and as clearly as I can, I will explain the reasons which have induced the Government to ask for a change of venue in the terms of this clause. I admit that if the object of the clause were simply to make a change in the machinery for bringing about the change venue—if that were the only object of it, the Amendment would not only be a reasonable, but a fair and proper one. In other words, if it were simply intended to introduce into Ireland the machinery which exists in England under Palmer's Act, the mode suggested by the Amendment might be fittingly adopted—namely, that either the prosecutor or the defendant, in open Court, should make an application for a change of venue, and that at the end of the discussion the Judge should give his decision. But we have proceeded all along on the basis that in certain parts of Ireland exceptional circumstances have arisen, and it is not proposed now to amend the machinery of the law, but to amend the law itself. When we come to the conclusion that the circumstances of Ireland require that the Crown should have the means of changing the venue, we looked about for the means by which that amendment of the law should be carried out, and we found that the circumstances bore a considerable analogy to those under which the Crimes Act of 1882 was passed. In that case the Legislature, having regard to the circumstances, have laid down certain provisions of the law, and we have a right to consider that what they did was, at all events, primâ facie reasonable, although hon. Gentlemen opposite were strongly opposed to the action then taken. What was done in that case was to provide that the Attorney General, by a mere certificate, without certifying any facts, should have power to apply for a change of venue, and should get an order of the Court sanctioning such change of venue. In other words, there was a final thing done on the more certificate of the Attorney General. The Attorney General was to give a certificate that a change of venue was required, and thereupon the order of the Court was to be made. On full consideration of the subject we came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to follow precisely and exactly the precedent of the Act of 1882, but that the powers conferred by that measure should be amended in the interests of the accused persons themselves. What is the process which at the present time we say it is desirable to adopt? We say that, in the first place, a certificate shall be applied for by the Attorney General stating that he believes a more fair and impartial trial can be had at a Court of Assizes in some county to be named in the certificate. I know it will be stated that a certificate is a matter of form; but I do not believe that such a certificate will be a matter of form at all. It is alleged that the action of the Attorney General will be governed by the Executive, and that he will not be guided by his own conscience and views of right in directing a change of venue. I will only say that no application will be made for a certificate without a, most careful consideration, and after taking into account what the Attorney General ought to certify, and whether a fair and impartial trial can be had in another county. Not only must the circumstances be such as to raise a doubt whether a trial in the county where the offence was committed would be fair and impartial, but also whether there is another place where, beyond all doubt, the case could be tried more fairly and impartially. If the allegations contained in the certificate are right, it will be only reasonable and proper that the venue should be changed. As to the argument that the Attorney General would be governed by the Executive, and that he would not exercise his own conscientious judgment in the matter, lot me ask what earthly motive the Attorney General can have for certifying what he has no reason to believe—namely, that good ground exists for changing the place of trial where in reality there is no such ground? Personally, the Attorney General, who bears the character of prosecutor in Ireland, can have nothing whatever to gain. Although the circumstances of the case may be attended with a considerable amount of difficulty, it cannot be asserted that any person who may occupy the position of Law Officer of the Crown will have any motive to attempt to do anything unfair in regard to a change of venue. However impartially and conscientiously an Irish Law Officer acts, he is always subjected to the most violent attacks; and, therefore, he has every reason to induce him to avoid doing anything unfair. If the Attorney General ever has any temptation at all, it is to do less than his duty rather than more. He knows that he may incur odium for doing less than his duty; but he has no temptation whatever to do more. And let me tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that, so far as the Executive are concerned, the Attorney General will be altogether free from their control or influence. He may be mistaken in the judgment at which he arrives; but what he will do will be done upon his own account, and he cannot be made responsible by any Member of the Government for the way in which he exercises his judgment. That being so, and the venue having been changed by the order of the High Court, it is then provided by this section that— If the accused has reason to believe that the trial could be more fairly and impartially had in a county other than the county named in the order of removal he may, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, apply to the High Court to discharge or vary such order; and thereupon the High Court may order that the trial shall be had in that county in which it shall appear that the trial can be most fairly and impartially had. That is the machinery we are providing in this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite asks—"Why do not you go to the Court in the way in which it is now approached and make a direct motion in open Court that the venue be changed?" In that case, he says, it is not likely that the Judge would direct a change of venue without good cause. He would require substantial evidence of a convincing character, which could only be given by a long series of facts, to show that it was impossible or improbable that a fair trial could be had without a change of venue. The circumstances of the case may be perfectly clear to the Crown and to persons outside the Court; but it would be difficult to prove them in the way the law requires in a Court of Justice. Such evidence, I maintain, would not be forthcoming in a disturbed district. The same causes which would render a change of venue desirable would operate in preventing the Crown from obtaining that evidence, and, as a necessary consequence, the Court would refuse to make an order. As a matter of fact, the application could only be based on general hearsay. It would be obviously impossible to give facts to show that the jurors of a particular county were not likely to do justice, and under those circumstances the Court would be practically coerced into refusing the application. It is perfectly well known that there are certain counties in Ireland in which difficulty exists, and in which jurors refuse to do their duty when a certain class of criminals is brought before them. But how could that fact be proved in the way in which a Court of Justice would require it to be proved? Information has been received again and again that jurors have been intimidated; but it is impossible to get together such evidence as would enable a Court, under the circumstances, to grant a change of venue. In point of fact, the same reasons which exist in a county in regard to preventing jurors from doing their duty would prevent the Crown from obtaining evidence to satisfy the Court that a change of venue was necessary. Therefore, if it is desirable to have a change of venue at all we must alter the mode of procedure. Let me point out that up to the present moment the Crown has never, except in one or two instances, succeeded in getting the venue changed. But although that difficulty exists on the part of the Crown, I do not think any difficulty exists in any part of Ireland which would prevent an accused person from showing that a change of venue would be an injury to him. I think that that can be clearly and easily shown. He would be surrounded by a number of persons whose sympathies would be with him, and who would be willing to come forward and state any fact which would clearly show that a change of venue would be an injury to him, and they could show it in the form of an affidavit in a way to satisfy the Court that to make an order for a change of venue would be injurious to the interests of the defendant. As the clause now stands, if the defendant applies to the Court to vary or discharge the order for the removal of the trial, the onus will not be placed upon the Crown of showing that it is impossible to get a fair and impartial trial; but the accused person, whose case might be prejudiced by a change of venue, will never experience any difficulty in obtaining evidence to show that the change would be injurious to his interests. As to the right of appeal against the certificate of the Attorney General for a change of venue, the hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no analogy for a provision of this nature. There is, however, an analogy in a well-known class of cases—namely, civil actions, which often involve issues quite as important as may be involved in some of the offences under this measure. In civil actions the plaintiff selects his own venue; but the defendant is entitled to have it changed on showing that it is expedient to do so in the interests of justice. Therefore, there is an analogy for this mode of procedure in what takes place in reference to a large class of eases that are now tried by a jury. I may add that experience shows that when a defendant applies for a change of venue on the ground that passion or prejudice may be excited against him in a particular locality the Crown has always granted the application, except where there was reason to believe that it was made merely for vexatious purposes. I have pointed out that at present there cannot be any effective change of venue except by means of such machinery as this, and we must choose between the machinery of the Act of 1882 and that which is now suggested. Our proposal is to alter the machinery of the Act of 1882 in a manner favourable to the accused. We allow an appeal to the defendant. The Government have most carefully considered the matter—not only the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but the other Members of the Government—and for these reasons I trust that the Committee will not accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend.

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

I am not going to discuss the precedent of the Act of 1882, for I altogether repudiate any argument based on that Act. I repudiated them yesterday, and I will not waste the time of the Committee by repudiating them again. At the same time, I frankly admit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the present clause is a great improvement on the Act of 1882. The Act of 1882 simply places it in the power of the Attorney General to obtain a change of venue without giving the defendant the power of appeal, whereas the present proposal confers that power. I should like to follow the right hon. and learned Attorney General through his argument, because it seems to me that it leads to a contrary conclusion to that which he has arrived at, and on his own bases the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General is perfectly justified. The position of the matter is this. The defendant, as a matter of right, is entitled to be tried in the county where the offence has been committed. The analogy which the right hon. and learned Attorney General has given as to a change of venue in a civil cause does not apply. Any right which the defendant in a civil action may have must depend upon the general law. That has no relation to the rights which prisoner or prosecutors may have in criminal trials. I presume that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will not dispute the fact that at present any prisoner charged with a criminal offence is entitled to have the place of trial in his own county.

MR. HOLMES

I quite admit that; but by the Common Law in civil actions the defendant had the same right.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

The allegation is that, in certain counties in Ireland, it is impossible to obtain a fair trial; and, therefore, the Government ask to have the venue changed in order that justice may be done. For the sate of argument, let me assume that to be the case, and that there is a necessity for a change of venue. Does that justify the present clause? The Government have been fond of asserting that the law of Ireland ought to be the same as that in this country. Now, some 30 years ago, owing to its being found impossible to obtain a fair trial in the case of a celebrated murder in the county of Stafford, Lord Campbell introduced a Bill into Parliament to enable, under such circumstances, the place of trial to be changed; but that Act placed the power of granting such change of venue in the hands of an impartial tribunal. Lord Campbell did not vest in the prosecutor, or in the prisoner, a right to determine where the case was to be tried; but he vested the authority in the hands of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, the enacting a procedure which deprives a man of his right to be tried under the Common Law in the place where the alleged crime was committed is a very serious step; and, therefore, in the case I refer to, the Legislature determined that it should not be vested in either of the parties to the case, but, on the contrary, that it was a judicial decision, to be arrived at by a properly qualified judicial tribunal. I will not argue the question whether a fair trial can or cannot be had in Ireland. I am assuming the premisses of the Government, and that a case has arisen in which a change of venue should take place; but my point is that an independent tribunal—namely, the High Court of Justice—should decide whether it should take place or not. The right hon. and learned Attorney General says that there might be great inconvenience and great delay; but he cut the ground from under his feet when he said that under this very clause the defendant will have a right of appeal, because the granting of an appeal would give rise to much greater delay. I do not charge the Government with any intention to act unjustly in the matter. They say—"What we propose is that the Attorney General shall have the right to change the venue on his own certificate, he being one of the parties in the case." I impute no motive to the Attorney General; but it is certainly his duty to obtain a conviction if he can, and the Government—and I think nobody will see it more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself—must have been struck with this injustice which has prevailed in previous legislation. They evidently recognize the unfairness of leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the Attorney General, because they now propose that the defendant, in a prescribed time and in a prescribed manner, may apply to the Court to confirm or set aside the order for the change of venue. In other words, the Court must make a formal order for a change of venue; but on an appeal against such formal order the question may be fully argued. It will be said that by this means the Government arrive at the same terminus by a different train. No doubt that is so; but they throw the onus upon the prisoner of proving that the venue ought not to be changed, whereas the onus should rest upon the prosecutor, seeing that the Government are attempting to deprive a man of his legal right of having it proved that the venue ought to be changed. There is another reason; and that is the matter of costs. You throw upon a poor defendant the costs of an expensive legal appeal; whereas, in the other case, the wealthy prosecutor—namely, the Crown—would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that there was a necessity for a change of venue. In fact, in many cases of this kind, it might not be necessary for the defendant to appear at all; because I take it that the High Court in Ireland would not consent to make an order, even upon the ex parte application of the Attorney General, if it was not satisfied with the evidence brought forward in the case. In such case the cost of the application would be thrown upon the Crown instead of being placed upon the man who is defending his rights. I would put it to the Government whether, if they are anxious to get on with the Bill, it is not desirable that they should accept the Amendment, which would certainly sweep away a large portion of the clause? Nor is there anything in it except in regard to the mode of procedure, for we both arrive at the same end. The right hon. and learned Attorney General admits that it is not enough to make the order, but he says that the order must be, in the first instance, put as a matter of course. We say—"Do not make it a matter of course, but let the Attorney General go to the Court with his evidence to show that a fair trial cannot otherwise be obtained." We might, then, be content to allow the rest of the clause to go; and, therefore, not only in the interest of justice, but to save the time of the Committee in discussing the Bill, I trust the Government will accept the Amendment. I do not think the right hon. and learned Attorney General will be inclined to meet all the Amendments with a non possumus. He has not done so hitherto, but he has accepted several Amendments which I have had the honour to propose. I certainly do not look at the question from the standpoint of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thinks that there should be a Bill; I think that there should be none at all; but if there is to be a Bill, it is not desirable to make it unnecessarily harsh. Therefore, I ask the Government to accept this Amendment as an improvement in the law, as he proposes to amend it, and as an analogy to the law which prevails in this country in precisely similar circumstances.

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

The Government would only be too glad, if they could, to accept the Amendment, and, indeed, any course proposed to the Committee so temperately as that which has just been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. But there is the greatest practical difficulty in the way of the Government in accepting it, and they feel themselves precluded from doing so, because they not only see very grave objections to such a course, but having regard to the effective character of the clause, and on that ground alone, they feel compelled to refuse the appeal which has been made to them. I do not pro- pose to speak at any length upon a subject which has been so ably dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes); but there are one or two points upon which I think I may say a few words. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Sir Charles Russell) referred to the hardship on the prisoner of removing him and all his witnesses to another part of the country on account of the expense; but so far as the witnesses are concerned, and that is really the material part, hon. Members must be aware that we have made provision in the Bill of such a nature that the prisoner will not suffer in that matter, seeing that the costs of the witnesses will be defrayed by the State. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) said that by the clause as it stands the onus of disproof is thrown upon the defendant; that by so doing he will be involved in costs which ought to be borne by the Crown, and that we are compelling a poor peasant to undergo great expenditure in order to defend himself. But let me point out that if that objection is valid at all, it is equally valid against the clause as it would stand if the Amendment were carried. If the clause were amended, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to amend it, the course of procedure would be this. The Attorney General would move for a change of venue. That proposal would be resisted by the prisoner, and the cost of resisting it would have to be borne by the defendant in exactly the same manner.

MR. T. M. HEALY

No; not at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If the application were not resisted by the defendant, it would be because the change of venue was right.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Not at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to continue my observations? What I maintain is that the two cases lie exactly on all fours, and that in each every element of hardship is got rid of. The hon. and learned Member has pointed out that under Palmer's Act the exact machinery he wishes to introduce in this Bill is actually in force, and that the Court is required to pronounce upon the merits of the case. But is there no distinction to be drawn between what happens in England and what happens in Ireland? In England, if it is found that a change of venue is necessary, it arises from special circumstances relating to the crime, or to the persons charged with the commission of the crime. Therefore, it is required that such circumstances should be proved in. Court, and consequently the rules of evidence must apply, and it is competent for the tribunal to give a sound and accurate opinion. But that is not the case when, to use an Irishism, we are dealing with an abstract condition which is not the moral condition of the whole of the country. That is a matter which a Court of Law bound by the strict rules of evidence is not competent to decide, and experience has universally shown that, whatever may be the opinion of Judges and competent persons, you have never been able to obtain a change of venue, or been able to show that the condition of a particular county was such that a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained. It cannot be seriously maintained that the failure of the change of the venue under the existing law is due solely to the fact that every observer of events outside the Court turned out to be mistaken. The real reason, as has been ably pointed out by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, for the proposal we make is that the Court will be precluded from taking that kind of view of the circumstances of the case which every practical man would take who is not bound by the rules of evidence, but would be guided by a common-sense view of the facts of the case. Therefore, if we look at the question from a practical point of view—if we know that a fair and impartial trial by jury is impossible unless there is a change of venue, I apprehend that we must take the machinery we suggest, unless we are to fall back upon the worse and more partial machinery which was agreed to by the House in. 1882. The system which we now suggest has been tried in a harsher form than we now propose, and no substantial injustice has ever been suffered.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is a monstrous statement.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Therefore, seeing that it will be possible in every case to make an appeal and require legal evidence to be given that a change of venue is necessary, and that when the principle of change of venue was tried in a harsher form than we now suggest no inconvenience resulted, the Government are of opinion that no object is to be gained by assenting to the Amendment, and, therefore, they must oppose it.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland went much further than the clause of the Bill. The clause in the Bill anticipates an application to the High Court; it does not, I presume, mean that the application to the High Court should be a farce. Would it not be more easy to enact that the Attorney General by his own fiat should fix the venue wherever he pleases? It would then have been easy to add that the defendant might then go to the High Court and apply to have the venue fixed elsewhere for reasons stated, because it is the presumption, under the clause, that the High Court would really hear the application and will do something upon it. But when I listened to the argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney General I found that nothing of that kind was intended; and I also found that it was intended that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for reasons known only to himself, should certify that a trial in a particular case should only be had in the place he chooses to name, and therefore there is no necessity for the interference of the Court. The fact that a change of venue has been ordered by the Court would arouse a prejudice against the man who is required to apply to the Court by way of appeal to vary or discharge the order already made. I can understand the argument of the Government, if they mean that the Attorney General ought to have the right to fix the venue wherever he pleases. That is an argument which, although I might not have been disposed to accept it, would have been perfectly clear; but here you go through the farce of making the High Court a party to what the Attorney General does without affording the slightest possibility of examination by the Court. I have had some experience as to the change of venue in criminal proceedings, although, of course, I do not compare my knowledge with that of the Legal Advisers of the Crown; but where notice has to be given by the Attorney General to the defendant or prisoner of an application that is about to be made, he must furnish the defendant with copies of the affidavits on which the application is to be based. It then rests with the defendant to say whether on such affidavits he is content to leave the matter to the Court, or whether he will answer. But the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says—"We cannot give evidence in support by affidavits." Affidavits in reference to a change of venue are generally made on information of belief. I have had some experience of such affidavits, and I undertake to say that I never heard any application made to any Court, except, perhaps, in Ireland—for I know very little of that country, and I am afraid that peculiar things are done there—but certainly I never heard any application made to any Court in England in which some of the paragraphs did not begin with the words—"I have been informed and verily believe." The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says that we ought not to go to that length; but that we ought to set aside all the rules of evidence. If that is so, why not return a verdict at once without any prosecution at all? Give to the Courts, which are usually governed by the rules which regulate evidence in matters affecting a change of venue in criminal trials, a very wide and liberal discretion. At present the Courts hold themselves bound by the strict rules of evidence both in regard to one side and the other, and outside legal technicalities it cannot be denied that the discretion they enjoy is invariably exercised fairly and impartially. Then, if you are to have the High Court introduced into your clause at all, give them the opportunity of exorcising their discretion in the first instance. If the Government did not intend that the defendant should have any appeal at all, if they had followed the precedent of the Act of 1882—a precedent which I certainly should have voted against if I had been permitted at that time, but, unfortunately, my right to vote was denied me—if they had followed that precedent their Bill would be illogical, because they say that the defendant has a right to be heard, and the only thing they do is to put upon him the extra cost of securing a hearing. He is without the affidavits which ought to justify the making out of an order, but he is put to the cost of preparing affidavits to justify the Court in discharging the order. I did not quite understand the whole of the argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. He said that the Government had been compelled to adopt the present fashion of enactment in consequence of certain technicalities which he said he would explain. I listened for those technicalities most attentively, but I failed to hear them. What was it I did hear? I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman allege that the Government found it impossible to get the evidence they wanted. That is not a technicality; but we are told that because the Government find it impossible to get the evidence they want, it is necessary that the High Court should make an order for a change of venue on the mere certificate of the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks what earthly object the Attorney General would have in certifying incorrectly. Of course, he personally could have no object whatever, and it is ridiculous to suppose that the mere costs would be any inducement, even to a pettifogging practitioner, to make an application which was not justified by a sense of justice.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Oh, dear no.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am sorry to hear it, but, at any rate, I acquit the right hon. and learned Gentleman of any such desire on his own part. If the certificate of the Attorney General is to determine the change of venue, do not let the High Court come in at all. Let the clause run that the Attorney General by his fiat may name some county where he considers a fair and impartial trial may take place. I say nothing about the cost; that is comparatively a trifling matter; but of course if the defendant is required to appeal it would be necessary to employ counsel to argue legal technicalities, and that expense would be saved if the Legislature were to provide that the fiat of the Attorney General should in Ireland be equivalent to an order granted in England upon a writ of certiorari. As the clause now stands the Government virtually say that the Court is not to be trusted with the power of fixing the place where the trials take place, but that the judgment of the Attorney General is much better. That means that while the right hon. and learned Gentleman is Attorney General his judgment is to overrule everything else; but it is to be a very different thing when the Attorney General ceases to be the Legal Adviser of the Government and happens to become a Judge. The Attorney General, as a matter of fact, is to be the only Judge in the mysterious manner known to himself, but utterly incomprehensive to other people outside. The Government ought to submit to one of two things. They ought either to say, "It must rest with the Attorney General where the case is to be tried," in which case he would issue his fiat directing the trial to be had in a particular county, or the application should be made in open Court, and fully argued before the Judge who is to hear it. In my opinion, all formal side Bar rules ought to be swept away. I do not know whether they exist in Ireland. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes; they do.] Then I am very sorry to hear it, and all I have to say is that it is one of the many things that exist in Ireland which ought to be got rid of. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that there is only a sentimental hardship upon a prisoner in the course proposed to be adopted under this clause. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: NO; I do not say that.] I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would do me the justice of saying that I have no wish to misrepresent him. I understood him to say that he would deal with the question of occasional hardship to a prisoner, and I further understood him to contend that there was really no hardship whatever, except one of sentiment. Of course I may be wrong; but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I desire to fasten upon him the use of a form of words which he repudiates. As to the question itself, in my view there is very serious hardship inflicted upon the prisoner. It would be a very wicked wish to wish that the right hon. Gentleman himself might be a prisoner, so that he would be able to appreciate the position; but I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman found himself in that position, he would know that there was a great deal more to consider than a mere question of cost in regard to being tried 200, 300, or 400 miles away from the place in which he had been arrested. The question is not always one of the simple cost of taking the witnesses where they are to be examined on the trial; but there is very frequently the much higher cost of the pain and trouble of finding evidence at all, and of procuring witnesses who are able to say what the facts of the case are. If you change the venue in the way this clause proposes, you surround the prisoner with people with whom he has never been brought in contact before, and he has no facilities whatever for producing evidence that would tell in his favour. On the other hand, if you try a man in the county where the alleged offence has been committed he is able to take care of himself, as I myself know from experience. I have been subjected to prosecution; but, fortunately, I have always been able to take care of myself. But an ignorant peasant, a vicious man, if you will, with no knowledge of legal technicalities or the Law of Evidence, will, undoubtedly, under the provisions of this clause, be placed in a position of very considerable difficulty.

MR. FORREST FULTON (West Ham, N.)

I must say that when I first saw the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) my inclination was to support it; but on further consideration, and especially after hearing the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I have come to the conclusion that there is one important fact which has been lost sight of which has decided me to vote against it. If we were discussing an abstract question as to what the course is which we ought to pursue, I should say that we ought to follow the practice laid down in Palmer's Act, and that there should be a direct application to the High Court of Justice, either by the Crown or the prisoner. But I cannot forget that this clause is introduced under special circumstances, and that it is to have no effect whatever except in a district which has been already proclaimed, and proclaimed, let it be borne in mind, by the Executive authority directly responsible for the government of Ireland. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] I am perfectly well aware that hon. Members from Ireland regard an assertion of that kind as perfectly ridiculous; but, nevertheless, the fact remains that we are now considering a Bill which presumes, at any rate, that there are districts in Ireland so disturbed in their character that it is necessary to proclaim them; and when once you arrive at the fact that these powers are not to apply at all except to a district already proclaimed I think you will get rid of a good deal of difficulty. Under such circumstances, allow me to call attention to the words of the Amendment, which propose to give the defendant the power to move to have the trial fixed outside the proclaimed district. The idea of supposing for a moment that any person charged with an offence, and that offence of an agrarian character, would ever desire to move the trial out of a proclaimed district is simply absurd. No doubt, it does appear hard, at first sight, that the onus of proof should be upon the defendant, and that the defendant should be called upon to apply to the High Court to get the original order rescinded. But it must be recollected that in principle this is exactly the course which is pursued under Palmer's Act, and that whatever expense is entailed in consequence is thrown upon the defendant. An order for a change of venue having been made, it is for the defendant to show that that change of venue will be unfair to him; and in that case he is required to appear personally or by counsel to argue the question, and in such a case exactly the same costs are thrown upon the defendant as he would be compelled to incur if the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney were adopted. As a matter of fact, the proposal now made by the Government is a very considerable improvement upon the practice laid down in the Act of 1882; and, personally, I am of opinion that if the High Court decides that a particular case ought not to be tried in a proclaimed district the Court would never think of removing the trial from the most Southern extremity to the most Northern. It certainly appears to me that no hardship will be involved in the case of the defendant having to instruct counsel to resist the application of the Attorney General; and, having regard to the fact that before an application of this kind can be listened to at all the district must have been proclaimed, I think there is no reason to fear that the judgment of the Court would not be in favour of directing that the trial shall take place in a locality where the trials shall be fair and impartial. For these reasons I cannot support the Amendment.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has given one of the most extraordinary reasons I ever heard for supporting the provision contained in this clause. He says that he had intended to support the Amendment, but that he declines now to do so because the provision is only to apply in a proclaimed district. Now, who is to decide what is to be a proclaimed district? It is to be the Lord Lieutenant and the Attorney General for Ireland, or, in other words, Dublin Castle. As for myself, I entirely repudiate the precedent of 1882. We are none of us infallible—not even the youngest of us—and we all know that a good many things have happened since 1882. Surely if the argument of the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, or the argument of the Chief Secretary, applies at all, it will apply just as strongly against the clause as it at present stands. We lawyers know what the legal costs are of resisting a legal application of this kind, and we know also what the costs are of making a counter application. There is, however, another consideration which ought not to be lost sight of; and that is that costs may, under this particular clause, be entailed in regard to an application which ought to have been altogether unnecessary: whereas if the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Charles Russell) is adopted, it will not be necessary for the defendant to appear at all, and therefore he need not incur any costs whatever. I should like to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland really knows what an order under this clause would cost the defendant? Does he know what the cost is of a simple appearance in the case of an order which is regarded as a matter of course? The only argument urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, seems to me to be the strongest possible argument in favour of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. They both contend that it is improper to obtain legal evidence in favour of a change of venue in cases contemplated by the clause; but that the application must be based upon moral evidence. Now, what I contend is, that if it is impossible to obtain legal evidence in support of the application, that is the strongest argu- ment that can be urged in favour of the Amendment. If the Amendment is not accepted, I am really disposed to think that the best plan would be to take the course of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and in trials which come under this clause to take the verdict first and hear the evidence afterwards.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I am glad to find that there is at least one hon. Member who sits on the Tory Benches opposite who, on the first view of this clause, would have been disposed to vote against those who may be called the professional advisers of this Bill. I regret that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Forrest Fulton) has seen fit to change the opinion he originally entertained, and I lament that he should now restrict his purview of this clause to cases in which the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council of Ireland shall have proclaimed a district. It is quite evident to my mind that the proclamation of a district can have nothing whatever to do with the circumstances of the case. So far as depriving a prisoner of his right to a fair trial is concerned, especially where an allegation is made that an unfair trial is likely to take place, if hon. Members will look at the provisions of this Bill they will see that it is altogether within the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to declare whether a district is to be proclaimed or not; and, so far as the costs are concerned, if a defendant makes an appeal he is only to be allowed costs after all the expenses have been incurred. What is to be the position of a man who has been brought under the provisions of this Act for resisting the payment of a rent of £4 or £5 a-year? How can a man in such a position incur the cost of bringing up the witnesses who would be necessary to support his case. Therefore this provision would be an absolute nullity. How is it possible that he should incur the cost of taking witnesses from Donegal to Cork? The clause says 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, and the Attorney General emphasized the fact that this provision is only to be carried out because such dangers now exist. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that, so far as he is personally concerned, he has always acted in an independent capacity. So far as his independence is concerned, I know nothing whatever of it; that is a matter for his own inner conscience; and it is not one of which the House of Commons can judge in any shape. He told us that personally he was prepared to exercise these powers with the greatest impartiality; but, unfortunately, we know how such powers have been exercised in other instances. There have been throe examples very recently. What occurred in the trial at Sligo? The people declared that the jury panel was packed, and when a public meeting was held to protest against the steps which had been carried out in reference to the trial, the Mayor of Sligo, standing on the steps of the Town Hall, was attacked.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is entering into matters which have no real relation to the Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

I am sorry if I have transgressed; but I was really anxious to show what, under this provision, the Attorney General might be able to do. Let me call attention to a case of a prosecution that occurred in Cork under the Dynamite Act, when the Attorney General availed himself of his right to challenge 20 of the jury, whereas the prisoners could only challenge six. What was the course pursued by the Crown in that particular case? The Government left out the word "felony" in the indictment in order that they might reduce the number of challenges allowed to the prisoners to six; and in so doing they committed, wilfully and maliciously, an act which the lowest and meanest mind would not commit. I challenge the Attorney General to rise in his place and state whether that was not the fact.

MR. HOLMES

I cannot say what was done in that particular case, because I had nothing whatever to do with the empannelling of the jury; but I am informed by the Solicitor General for Ireland that there was a technical mistake in omitting from the indictment the word "feloniously." Moreover, that technical flaw resulted in the fact that the indictment was quashed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Yes; upon an application by the prisoner.

MR. CHANCE

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has only involved himself in further difficulty. The charge was a most serious one, and, in the end, it was shown that the Crown had indicted a man for an offence which was a statutory felony; but the omission of the word "felony" was so fatal an error that the indictment was quashed. I leave English Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House to judge whether by these tactics the position of the Crown, as Public Prosecutor, was not disgracefully abused. I am further reminded that in the case to which I am calling attention the prisoner was entitled to a copy of the affidavits, but it was not until he stood in the dock that he even hoard the indictment against him read. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a somewhat short memory; but there was another case in which his Colleague who is now sitting beside him (Mr. Gibson) acted for him—namely, the trial of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), for having put forward the Plan of Campaign. In that case the venue was changed to Dublin, in the belief that the Crown would be readily able to secure 12 subservient jurymen, and in his burning solicitude for a fair trial the Crown Prosecutor directed no less than 28 jurors—respectable citizens of Dublin—to stand aside, while he allowed to the defendant the right of challenging six only. We all know how these powers are exercised, and the gross abuse of them is one of the reasons which induce me to support the Amendment. We are now told that it will be sufficient to justify the Court in assenting to a change of venue that there should be a statement made upon evidence, which may simply amount to general hearsay. The Attorney General seems to forget—his memory, I am afraid, is very short—that not long ago one of his own nominees, in a case in which the hon. Member for East Mayo was concerned, made statements which were subsequently shown to be altogether destitute of foundation. So also, in applications under this clause for a change of venue, the statement that the Crown may have a difficulty in securing a fair and impartial trial may be the most misleading assertion that can be imagined. Nor must it be forgotten that the Crown has enormous funds at its disposal. Indeed, it is notorious that in connection with the administration of justice the Crown spends upwards of £300,000 a-year more in Ireland than is spent in England according to the same extent of population. Not only is that the case, but the Irish Executive utilizes the Secret Service Fund for the commission of crime and outrage in Ireland, instead of checking it. Who are the persons who will be prosecuted under this measure? Prisoners whose only crime will be that they have defended their miserable cabins; that they have protected their aged and infirm parents from the brutality of the police, and defended their wives and daughters from outrage—prisoners who have no resources whatever, but against whom the whole power and majesty of the law will be arrayed. Reference has been made to civil actions, but in such cases you do not find the intervention of the Crown, the action being one that is simply between the parties. Further than that, when the venue is changed, the defendant has the same number of challenges as the prosecutor, and is not placed at the disadvantage of knowing that the Crown can select 12 men to try the case from whom a conviction is almost a matter of certainty. I am sorry that there are Members of this Committee who are prepared to justify the action of the Irish Executive. I trust that there are Members of the Tory Party who will examine the matter for themselves, and will hesitate before they consent to give a blind and silent vote. Let me say one word as to the difficulty of placing evidence before the Court. Under a Tory Code, settled by a Tory Commission, appointed by a Tory Government in 1879, provision was made which placed the defendant and the prosecutor on a footing of equality whenever an application for a change of venue might be made. It cannot be pretended that in 1879 Ireland was less disturbed than it is now, and if the difficulties which existed in 1879 were not insupportable I do not see why they should be insupportable now.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

I am glad to find that it is conceded by hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is an important issue. It was quite an agreeable change to hear an hon. and learned Member on the other side of the House express his views upon the matter instead of those Law Officers of Ireland of whom we had become absolutely tired, and there has been not only a uniformity of argument, but an absolute unformity in regard to the persons who have reason on the part of the Government to express it. So far as the Attorney General for Ireland is concerned, his achievements to-day surpass anything he has hitherto attempted, and he has quite outshone himself. His statement was that under Palmer's Act, whenever an application has been made for a change of venue, the Court has always refused the application, the real fact being that it has always been impossible to give a satisfactory reason for a change of venue whenever an application of the Crown has been seriously challenged. The Attorney General for Ireland is to be a party with the Lord Lieutenant in proclaiming a district, and the moment a district is proclaimed you say that he is to have a right to say that there shall be a change of venue. I am glad to find that the proposal is one which in the abstract is resisted even by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Fulton), and I am sure that the arguments upon which it is based by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland are altogether unsound.

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

My hon. Friend says that he is tired of hearing the Law Officers of the Grown. I cannot say that I share in that feeling, for there is one Irish Law Officer whom we have not yet had an opportunity of hearing at all—the Solicitor General for Ireland. I think it is an insult to the Irish Members that that hon. and learned Gentleman should have been required to remain silent on the Tory Benches, while the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who knows absolutely nothing about the Bill, should be put up time after time to give legal information to the House. So far as the question of costs is concerned, I am afraid that whoever drafted the Bill has kept in a provision by which what may be called a species of fat is to be provided for outside members of the Irish Bar, who are to act as devils to the Attorney General for Ireland, and receive odd briefs. Reference has been made to the fact that a provision of this kind was contained in the Act of 1882; but it has not been stated that that provision was passed at a moment when the Irish Members had been kicked out of the House. As a matter of fact, it was agreed to when the Irish Members had been suspended, and with all its imperfections undiscussed and undebated, and without one single Irish Member having had an opportunity of saying a word upon it. If the First Lord of the Treasury carries his own Motion for the closure, the same farce will be enacted again, and any provision the Government like to insist upon will be carried without debate and without discussion. If the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) were here, I would ask him whether, in his present zeal for economy, he thinks it right that Irish barristers should be enabled to pocket substantial fees simply for going into Court and making motions which must be carried as a matter of course? In this Jubilee Tear of Her Majesty, are you going to be so princely in regard to fees and pickings for Irish counsel that, as a matter of course, you will give them a fee of two guineas where one would suffice? No doubt the Attorney General for Ireland occupies a position which requires a lot of keeping up, but it must, be borne in mind that this is an expenditure which does not go into his pocket, but into the pocket of outside and inferior men, who deserve no consideration whatever. Unless the House wishes to add something to the already bloated pockets of the Irish Law Officers, I do not see why it should not be sufficient to declare that the fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland should be sufficient, and that the order for a change of venue should be made as a matter of course. It must not be forgotten that in many cases these crumbs which may fall from the table of Dives will only find their way into the pockets of the Lazaruses who act as the jackals of the Attorney General for Ireland, a class of animals for whom nobody has an overwhelming amount of respect. I, therefore, trust that the Government will see their way to omit this part of the Bill, and that they will provide that the simple fiat of the Attorney General for Ireland shall be sufficient to justify a change of venue.

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

As far as I can undertand the object of the clause, it is to procure a fair and impar- tial trial; but so far as the impartiality is concerned, everything is to be left to the Attorney General for Ireland, and all the facts of the case, instead of being left to both sides, are to be left to one side only. It seems to be a sufficient answer to any proposition made by the Government to say that it is to be carried out by the Attorney General for Ireland, and no one is to question the angelic character of the Attorney General for Ireland, at any rate until he happens to leave the Government, when, of course, he will be replaced by some other right hon. and learned Gentleman who will be entitled to the same angelic description. For the purpose of explaining my view of the matter, let me assume a case. The Government think it proper to prosecute me for some offence and the Attorney General for Ireland undertakes the prosecution in the ordinary way. Now I presume that when the Attorney General of Ireland goes into Court, he forgets altogether that he is a. Member of the Government, and he has no regard for that fact either in the course of the trial itself, or in preparing for it. In that case, he will simply occupy the position of counsel and will do his best for his clients, and the first thing he desires to do is to secure an impartial trial. It may be the view of the Attorney General for Ireland that an impartial trial can only be had in the County of Down, but that may not be the view of the late Attorney General for Ireland, who may have been retained. Then I cannot understand why the Attorney General for Ireland, whoso relations with the Government are practically at an end the moment he goes into Court, should have rights and privileges which are not to be enjoyed by the counsel for the defence. It seems to me that if any advantage is to be given at all it ought, in fairness and on principle, to be given to the man who has to defend himself against an accusation. What I ask for in this case is, that the two counsel engaged in it shall have identically the same rights and the same privileges; whereas under the clause as it stands, the Government and their supporters desire to give in a trial before a Superior Court an advantage to one counsel only, because he happens to be a Member of the existing Government, to the disadvantage of the prisoner, and a privilege which would not be given to any counsel if he did not happen to represent the Attorney General for Ireland. That seems to me to be grossly unfair so far as the administration of justice is concerned. And now let me deal with the second part of the clause. It is quite clear that in the majority of prosecutions under this measure the Attorney General for Ireland cannot attend to them himself, and, therefore, he cannot be personally conversant with the conditions under which a particular trial may take place in any particular district, so as to be able to say of his own knowledge that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had. He has, therefore, to depend upon the knowledge of somebody else. I am quite prepared to admit that the Attorney General for Ireland himself is an angelic character in the highest degree. I do not say that jocosely, but I allow that he is a fair, honourable, and upright man. It is clear, however, that he can know nothing personally of the conditions under which a trial can be instituted. Then, on whom does he rely? He is bound to rely upon the Crown Prosecutor; and the Crown Prosecutors, like other bodies of men, may be good, bad, or indifferent. As a matter of fact, for some years a Crown Prosecutor who had more to do with political trials than anybody else was Mr. George Bolton. I simply mention the name of that gentleman, because it is so well known to the House, and the course taken by him in reference' to the administration of justice in Ireland is well known. Well, if this Bill is passed, as I have no doubt it will be, Mr. George Bolton is a man who will give the information to the Attorney General for Ireland upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to issue his certificate, and make his declaraction that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had. There are other George Boltons in Ireland, for the Crown Prosecutor, as a rule, is attached to Dublin Castle, and he is bound to have a bias in favour of one particular side, and a very strong bias too. Now, I say distinctly that if the Attorney General for Ireland is to obtain his information from gentlemen like Mr. Bolton, whose bias is notorious, and who is still, I believe, one of the Crown Prosecutors in Ireland, although he has been condemned by every Government who has been in Office for the last five years, although he is a gentleman who has peen proved up to the hilt to have indulged in improper practices, although it is notorious that he has been a dishonest Crown Prosecutor—and because he was a dishonest Crown Prosecutor the Government removed him from a portion of his duties—nevertheless, the Attorney General for Ireland will not deny that, under this Bill, he may have to rely upon statements made by a gentleman of that character, in order to justify him in issuing a certificate that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in a particular locality. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General for Ireland is bound to fall back upon the Crown Prosecutor; and here we have a case in which a Crown Prosecutor has been proved, both by the late and the present Government, to be dishonest. Yet it is upon the information supplied by a Gentleman of that character that the Attorney General for Ireland is to have the privilege of removing a trial to whatever part of Ireland he may think proper. Viewing it as a matter of justice and principle, how can any hon. Member in this House defend the claim which is made by the Government, that the Attorney General for Ireland, acting under the conditions I have described, is entitled to have this privilege, while a similar privilege is to be denied to the late Attorney General for Ireland, no matter how good the case he may be able to bring forward, and however clearly he could establish that a trial in a particular district would not be a fair and impartial trial so far as his client is concerned? I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Fulton) say that at one time he felt disposed to vote for the Amendment, because one does not expect an hon. Member on that side of the House to vote for any Amendment, good, bad, or indifferent, proposed from this side. But when the hon. and learned Member rose to explain his views, what was the defence he made for his altered action? He told us that if this clause were to be applied to the whole of Ireland he would vote for the Amendment. His only excuse for refusing to take that course, beyond the angelic character of the Attorney General for Ireland, is the fact that it is only to be applied to a part of Ireland.

MR. FORREST FULTON

I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; what I said was, that this power of changing the venue is only to be exercised in the case of a proclaimed district.

MR. MOLLOY

Quite so; but that does not alter the case one iota. If it is unjust and wrong to apply this principle to the whole of Ireland, it is equally unjust and wrong to apply it to part. It cannot be denied that, even in regard to the proclamation of a district, the Lord Lieutenant is to act largely, if not entirely, upon the advice of the Attorney General for Ireland, and if the Attorney General for Ireland, for purposes of his own, chooses to proclaim a particular district, that fact does not render the application of this principle one whit the less unjust. If it is unjust to apply it to the whole of Ireland, it is manifestly unjust to apply it to part. If privileges are to be given to counsel on the one side, it is only equally right that they should be given to counsel on the other side, and for these reasons I shall feel it my duty to resist the clause to the utmost of my power.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 142: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 204.) [7.25 P.M.]

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move to leave out the word "more," after "a," in page 3, line 26. As the clause is at present drawn, all the Attorney General has to certify is that a more fair and impartial trial can be had elsewhere than in the county in which the crime is committed. I wish that he should be called upon to certify that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the offence has taken place. That is an intelligent proposition, and I shall be greatly surprised if the Government decline to accept it. It is quite possible there may be cases in which more fair and impartial trials can be had elsewhere; but that is not a reason why you should change the venue if a fair and impartial trial can be had in the county in which the crime takes place.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, after the first words "a," to leave out the word "more."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

It seems to me, and I think no one will deny the proposition, that in the interest of the public, the Crown, and anyone who is anxious to see justice fairly and impartially administered, every trial should take place where the most fair and impartial trial can be had. The Government are of opinion that a trial can be more fair and impartial in one place than in another, and that, in my opinion, is a good ground for removing a trial. Assuming that we all desire that trials should take place under the most fair and impartial circumstances, it is perfectly sufficient for a certificate to be made that a more fair and impartial trial can be had in one place than in another.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I have never questioned the proposition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has laid down that the form provided under this section is a sufficient form. What I complain of is that it is too sufficient. I entirely take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to what the policy of this clause should be. I entirely deny that what the Government are looking for is an ideal venue. Of course if it was the general policy of law that you could not have a trial unless you had a venue open to no conceivable objection—an ideal venue—the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention would be perfectly intelligible. But what I say is this—that before you turn your back upon the present Constitutional doctrine that a person shall be tried in the county in which the offence is committed, it should be shown that in that county a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained. That ought to be the foundation of an application for a change of venue. I maintain that, as the clause is at present drawn, it would not be competent for the Attorney General to wake out that case. He might go into Court and admit that a fair and impartial trial can be had in the county, but say that, in his opinion, a more fair and impartial trial can be had elsewhere, and on that ground ask for a change of venue. It is absurd that the Government should ask for this power, and unreasonable to expect Parliament to grant it. Let the Government be content to leave well alone. If they have a county in which they can have a fair and im- partial trial, why go speculating as to whether they can get a better trial elsewhere. They ought to remember that all things are not perfect in this world, and that even when this Bill comes into force they need not expect a state of perfection to prevail in Ireland. I maintain that if the Attorney General is satisfied that a fair and impartial trial can be had in the county in which the offence was committed, he ought to be content, and not go elsewhere to see if he can get a more fair and impartial trial.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 85: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 205.) [7.50 P. M.]

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

I beg to move to omit the words in line 27, "some county to be named in the certificate," and insert, "the County of the City of Dublin." The object of my Amendment is that the Attorney General should nominate the particular county to which the venue shall be changed, and that he should not be left to take us to Belfast, Derry, or some other places which he admits to be unfit places for the trial of certain cases. I may remind him that, so far as the Act of 1882 went, all the special jury trials took place in Dublin, with the exception of a few which came off in the City of Cork. Now, Sir, the City of Dublin contains, I have no doubt we shall be told, the great mass of the special jury classes. I do not know any other venue that contains so many except Belfast, and I am sure the Attorney General for Ireland will not tell us he is going to take us to Belfast. I may be told also that the City of Dublin venue would not always be the most suitable venue. I presume the Attorney General for Ireland could, if he liked, go to the Court and show cause. Let him put in a provision that he shall show cause. Allow me to point this out, that it was a City and County of Dublin venue which tried, for instance, the Phœnix Park cases; it was a mixed venue of the City and County of Dublin which tried all the recent political cases in Ireland. Except in the County and City of Cork I do not know where else the Government can get a sufficient number of special jurors to pack a jury. Take the County of Cork—you have only 200 special jurors. In County Clare I think you have the same number. Outside the City of Dublin you have really not sufficient special jurors qualified to act. Now, so far as the whole South of Ireland goes, I admit that my Amendment is really of no importance, but it is all-important as it is now decided we are not to be dragged to Ulster and to be tried there by members of Orange lodges and secret societies. I think now that a day is to be fixed for the termination of this Committee. I shall put down an Amendment providing that no person who is a member of any secret society shall be allowed to serve upon a special jury. If you take the case of Ulster you will find that every special juror is a member of a secret society. He is either a Freemason or an Orangeman. In this country Freemason Lodges are mere dining clubs, but in Ulster they have always a political bias—though a Catholic can join a Freemason Lodge—and these Lodges become cliques of persons of a particular class. An organization which in England really does not mean anything at Bill, but which is very like the Ancient and Independent Order of Buffalos, in Ireland has a bias of a very objectionable character. In the same way Orangemen would always prevail in Belfast juries, therefore I think it is a reasonable thing that the Attorney General should be compelled to choose the County of the City of Dublin as his venue, and then he should, if he likes, have power to show cause why it would be proper to change the venue from the City of Dublin.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "some county to be named in the certificate," and insert, "the County of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. T. U. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'some county to be named in the certificate,' stand part of the Clause."

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

I cannot but think that it would be very unfair to throw all the work which these trials will entail upon the special jurors of the City of Dublin. There are a great number of counties in Ireland situated at a great distance from the County of the City of Dublin, and it would be unreasonable to bring prisoners to Dublin from these counties, unless their expenses were paid. It is quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The Attorney General for Ireland has been very brief indeed, and very curt in giving his reasons for objecting to this Amendment. But to my mind, if I were on the Government Bench, and desired to give honest and straightforward reasons for objecting to this Amendment, I think I could give two reasons which would have a deal more cogency than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's. There is one reason perfectly obvious. No doubt, most of the jurors of the City of Dublin are men of great probity, and also men of considerable independence, and, taken from the Government point of view, they are men against whom it would be very difficult to advance anything improper; but, unfortunately for the Government, they are not men altogether of one class of mind and political belief. The real reason why this Amendment will not be accepted is that, although the City of Dublin was good enough under the Crimes Act of 1882, under the new Crimes Act it is the intention of the Government to bring prisoners from the South and West of Ireland to Antrim and to Armagh, and such like venues, try them before 12, I will not say Orangemen, but landlords, agents, or Government hangers-on, and half-pay captains. There is another very strong reason why this Amendment should not be accepted from the Government point of view, and it is this. It is an unhappy state of things, from their point of view, that all the Judges upon the Irish Bench cannot be depended upon. The Judges take certain Assizes, and it might be very awkward and inconvenient for the Government if prisoners were dragged to trial before Judges like the Chief Baron, for instance. The Chief Baron and two or three others of the Irish Judges might not give that assistance to the maintenance of law and order which, in the opinion of Dublin Castle officials, they ought to give. Therefore, it is that under this clause power is taken to delay applying for a change of venue until the last moment, until the Assizes are out and until the Crown is in a position to discover that there is a good and sound Judge to be had in certain places, to which places, of course, they will send political prisoners. The Government unquestionably will pick out the Northern venues in which sound Judges, from their point of view, are found to be presiding. These are, to my mind, the real reasons why this Amendment will not be accepted.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

Mr. Courtney, the consideration of the Attorney General for Ireland for the convenience of Irish jurors is really very touching. I am sure the jurors will be greatly edified by his attitude towards them. But perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to the way in which the Government have treated Cork jurors in holding Winter Assizes at Cork for the whole province of Munster. Nearly every year for 10 years the Winter Assizes have been held at Cork, although the Government have power to vary the place from time to time. I put a question upon this subject to the Government, but in regard to it, I received very scant courtesy indeed. In the matter of the Cork Winter Assizes, the Attorney General considered the convenience of the learned counsel prosecuting the prisoners, and the learned Judge who was to leave Dublin to try the prisoners, of importance paramount to the convenience of the jurors of Cork. In that state of things, I am not disposed to attach very great weight to his commiseration of the wrongs that have been inflicted on the jurors of the City of Dublin. We take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's declaration of sympathy as worth very little indeed. Now, what are the arguments which may be urged in favour of this Amendment. It appears to me they are many and weighty. In the first place, the City of Dublin is the centre of the legal system of Ireland, it is the place where the bulk of the civil business is done; indeed, I think it could be shown that nine out of every 10 record trials which have taken place in Ireland for the past 10 years have been tried in the City of Dublin, because, since the Judicature Act came into force, the trial of records in the City of Dublin has been a matter of great convenience. Then, Dublin being the capital of Ireland, is very convenient as regards travelling to and from it. It is easy of access, there are great facilities concerning Dublin in the way of trains and other convey- ances, and considered from the point of view of the convenience of witnesses and other persons, Dublin is a very convenient place for a trial. Then, again, the burden of judicial work is cast on the shoulders of a larger number of persons in the City of Dublin than it is in any other portion of Ireland. Dublin is the largest City in Ireland, and of course the number of jurors in Dublin is larger than that elsewhere. That being so, Dublin is in that sense the place best fitted for the trial of the cases which will arise under this section. Although to change the venue of these cases to Dublin would inflict some inconvenience and additional work upon the jurors of Dublin, that inconvenience and additional work would be less than that thrown upon, the jurors of any other district. Now let me test the value of the declaration of the Attorney General for Ireland by his own action within the past six months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had himself to choose venues within the past six months. He was fixing the Winter Assizes over a vast area of Ireland, an area extending over the greater portion of Leinster and some portion of Munster. What he did was to try in Dublin prisoners of no less than seven counties in Ireland at the last Winter Assizes. So far from considering the feelings of the unfortunate jurors of Dublin he cast that additional burden upon them without the smallest compunction. Prisoners from counties so remote as Waterford were tried in the City of Dublin. It does appear to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give some consideration to this Amendment. I think he might reasonably have taken into consideration the precedent pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)—namely, the precedent of the Crimes Act of 1882. There is no doubt it was not compulsory on the Executive to select the City of Dublin in every particular case; but so great was the convenience of the City of Dublin, and so strong were the arguments that could be urged in favour of it, that in every case, with very few exceptions, the City of Dublin was selected by the Irish Executive of that day as the place in which to try cases from all parts of Ireland. Really, the difficulty is not to find arguments for this Amendment, but to find arguments against it—not a new experience in respect to the progress of this Bill. I certainly consider that the Government are acting unreasonably in refusing this Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think I should make it clear that I only moved this Amendment in order to elicit the opinion of the Government in regard to the place of trial. I do not mean to say that the City of Dublin is always the best venue; but what I wanted was some declaration from the Government as to the bringing of prisoners for trial, say, from the South to Ulster. I should like to ask some of the Members of the Government who are in their places if they have ever examined the Return showing what the facts are as regards special juries. We will take the case of the County of Leitrim. There are 110 special jurors in this county, in which there are 15,000 voters or householders. You have 110 persons to whom you are going to entrust the entire administration of law and order in the whole of Ireland. There is no county, except the County of the City of Dublin, in which there are 1,000 men who in future will have any interest or concern in the administration of justice. You have reduced the special jury class in Ireland to such a condition that nowhere, except in the single instance of the County of the City of Dublin, where there are 1,300, are there 1,000 men who in future will have anything to say in the administration of the law. It is right that Englishmen should thoroughly understand this state of affairs. In some of the counties there are 100, 121, 182, 233, 271, 50, 112, 113, and so on, the average being one special juror in 50 voters. In addition to that, you cut down the special jurors still lower by the system of unlimited challenge, so as to bring the thing down to what has been called a residuum. I must confess that I should not like to be a special juror, for by what you are doing you are really converting the special juror class into lightning conductors for popular passion. Fortunately, they will be shielded, to a large extent, by the feeling of appeasement which the people entertain owing to the proposals which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone).

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

It is just possible that one of the reasons why the Attorney General for Ireland objects to the venue of the County of the City of Dublin, is that by an Act passed, I think, under a Tory régime, some few years ago, the City of Dublin recovered the power it formerly possessed of electing its Sheriff, and that since then it has always elected Nationalists, whether Protestants or Catholics. The people of the City of Dublin have, through the election of the Sheriff and Sub-Sheriff, clearly shown of what their political views are, and now it is on account of the prevalence of Nationalist views that the Government fight shy of the City of Dublin venue for the trial of political offences. I dare say that if we proposed the County of Dublin, instead of the County of the City of Dublin, there would not be such a great objection. In the County of Dublin they have, as High Sheriff, a rack-renting landlord—a gentleman who has made himself extremely prominent in the landlord ranks, and they have, in addition, a Sub-Sheriff of the same kidney—a man who has not only identified himself with the landlord party, but who has so far mixed himself up in illegal proceedings as to get himself reported to this House for corruption and bribery at an election—practised in the interest of the landlord minority in his constituency. It is as well that the real reason for the refusal of this Amendment should be stated in debate. The County of the City of Dublin has been, in past years, the venue for all these trials. If you go back to the beginning of the century you find the City of Dublin the venue for all political and agrarian trials of importance; and coming down to 1848, the trials for treason and treason-felony all took place in the same venue. The Fenian prisoners were tried in the City of Dublin. All the prisoners convicted under the Crimes Act of 1882 were tried in the City of Dublin; but of late years—since the Corporation of Dublin got into the habit of electing Nationalists as High Sheriff—the Government have fought shy of the City of Dublin. In the case of the last State prosecutions, the Crown first fixed the venue in the City of Dublin. But they thought better of it, and removed the venue to the County of Dublin, where they endeavoured—though unsuccessfully—to pack the panel, by the aid of the landlord Sheriff, and that corrupt official the Sub-Sheriff. The Attorney General for Ireland professes great concern for the jurors of the City of Dublin; but we can understand exactly the value of that concern. He need have no concern on that point. I may remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that even in the City of Dublin the Crown, under the present law—not with standing the presence of a Nationalist High Sheriff and a Nationalist Sub-Sheriff—have, and always will have, a certain number of men who will be only too proud and too happy to act as con-victors of Nationalists under all circumstances. There are many gentlemen in Dublin, well known to Dublin Castle, who hang up the Lion and Unicorn over their shop doors, and who no doubt expect to receive from the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman), in this year of the Jubilee, a medal for their services. These men will always be at hand to try political prisoners. They will be looking out anxiously for the appearance of their names in the lists. They will not object if they are called upon every day in the year to serve upon juries in political and agrarian cases. Their great glory and boast in their Freemason and Orange Lodges is that they have so many Nationalist scalps in their net. In the case of every successive prosecution you will find those men hanging round the Courts, wanting to be put upon juries, and, I venture to say, protesting loudly if they are not put upon juries. I am afraid it is a mere pretence on the part of the Government that they have any great concern for the jurors of the City of Dublin. If there is any use in urging any reasons in favour of this Amendment—and I hardly think there is, seeing the state of the Government Bench, and the attitude of the Representatives of the Government present—I venture to say there is just one reason why Dublin City is about the one venue in all Ireland which ought to try such cases as will be brought up under this Act. The cases to be tried will be cases arising out of disputes concerning land, and surely the fittest community to try cases of this sort is a constituency which is not agricultural or rural, but urban. The City of Dublin, as far as I know, is the only place in Ire- land, not even excluding Belfast, where you can get a sufficient number of jurors unconnected with the land, and, therefore, to a certain extent qualified to try these cases impartially. I urge this upon the attention of the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster). It is a solid argument and reason which ought to be taken notice of, and it is offered with a sincere desire to convince him if I can. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) was somewhat out in his impression that the Government intended to make use of the other counties of Ireland besides Dublin and the Northern counties. No doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland in stating his case said something to load to that impression. But I am afraid there are only two places in the whole of Ireland to which the Government will venture to send political or agrarian cases. They will send them to two places, and to two places only. They will send them to the town of Belfast, where Orangemen will greatly predominate on the juries, or they will send them to South Dublin, where they can, by judicious manipulation of the panel, secure a jury of rack-renting landlords to do what they want. I have no doubt that if they want convictions, they will obtain them under this Act, but their gain will be the ruin of the system they uphold.

Question put and agreed to.

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

I beg to move, in page 3, the insertion of the words ("not in Ulster,") after "county," in line 27. The object of the Amendment is, of course, very clear. The Attorney General for Ireland himself has said it would not be fair to move a trial from the Southern Provinces into the Province of Ulster. The whole of the arguments advanced by the Government in favour of this section have been entirely based upon the words "more fair and impartial trial." Now, as the Government admit, it would be unfair to move a trial from the Southern Provinces into Ulster. I take it for granted they cannot have any particular objection to the insertion of the words "not in Ulster." Speaking of Ulster in a former debate, the present Attorney General for Ireland said that Province was the most law-abiding part of Ireland. Owing to what has happened since then, he has changed his opinion to a very large extent, and admits now that a fair trial would not be had in cases arising in the Southern Provinces. Still another Gentleman may very soon succeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his Office, and what we want to guard against is, that there shall not be any attempt on the part of a future Attorney General to get "a more fair and impartial trial" in the Province of Ulster. We know very well that those who will be special jurors in Ulster entertain the most violent views upon anything which appertains to politics and religion; and, therefore, it would be most unfair to submit to them any case from another Province of a political or agrarian character. No one who has any knowledge of Ireland would, for a moment, suggest that the trial in Ulster, of a political offender from the South, would be fair and impartial. The Government can have no valid reason for refusing this Amendment, especially since the Attorney General for Ireland has admitted its propriety.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, after the word "county," to insert the words ("not in Ulster").—(Mr. Molloy.)

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

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

I venture to think that this matter of the change of venue must be decided according to the facts of each case. I can imagine that Ulster would be a proper place in which some trials should take place, and in which a fair and impartial trial might be assured. It is impossible to foresee every event; and, therefore, it would not be right to pick out any of the Provinces, and say that in that Province a trial shall not be held. We must assume that people will do their duty—["Oh, oh!"]—I am quite aware hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway do not assume anything of the kind; but I, in my position, am obliged to assume that the Government will not use the clause improperly, and, for the reason I have given, it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

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

If the Government will accept the Proviso standing in the name of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), which, is to the effect that no man shall be taken out of his own Province, except the County of the City of Dublin, the whole point will be met. This Amendment compels the Government to exclude Ulster altogether. That, of course, would not be fair, be-cause some men might prefer to be tried in Ulster. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has said the Government will not act improperly. Why cannot we have "propriety" inserted in the Statute? We all intend to act honestly, and we do not think it an insult to have notions of propriety laid down in the form of the Ten Commandments. It is no insult to anybody that the Ten Commandments are in existence. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has said it would not be a fair thing to take any man from a Southern county to a Northern county for trial. Will he allow us to quote that expression in the Courts? I never knew a Bill conducted on such principles as this. We have had "Will-of-the-wisp" kinds of arguments advanced by the Government when we meet them in respect to one argument, they fly to another, and subsequently they rake up the first as fresh as ever. I do beg the Government to say they will allow no man to be taken out of his own Province for trial, and perhaps it would be better to take the discussion upon this subject upon the Amendment ot the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). Let me give a couple of instances of the bias of Ulster jurors. In the case of Bernard Smith—I forgot the man's surname the other night—one of the Crossmaglen prisoners, Judge Lawson directed an acquittal, but the jury convicted the men. In the same way, Judge Lawson made a distinction in the case of a man named Geoghan, but he also was convicted. Smith was released in a few weeks, but it took the Government two years to make up their minds whether Geoghan was guilty or not. At the end of two years they released him. It is just possible that some time or other the Friends of the Government will wish there was some such provision as I suggest. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), may be glad sometimes that men cannot be taken out of Ulster to be tried. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), if he made a fiery speech when there is a Home Rule Government, might prefer to be tried in Ulster. The senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), in a letter he wrote to The Times yesterday, declared that Ulster forms a separate nationality, and yet it is to this separate nationality we are to be dragged for trial if the Attorney General for Ireland thinks fit. I would, rather be tried in the City of London with The Times blasts operating on the jurors than be tried in Belfast. Everybody in the Committee must know what kind of justice a poor Nationalist would get in Belfast. I greatly fear that if these clauses are carried out in their integrity the people may be driven to retaliatory measures of a very violent nature.

MR. MOLLOY

I was not aware the question is to be brought up in another and a better form. I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—namely, in page 3, line 29, after "certificate," to add— Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall empower the removal of any trial from any one of the four provinces to anywhere outside of such province, except the County of the City of Dublin. This Amendment, I think, scarcely requires explanation. The promoters of this Bill maintain that they are actuated by the desire to have a fair administration of justice in Ireland. Well, I will assume that they are, though I am afraid that the assumption is a rather violent one, and one which, when I go back in history, or even in my own recollection, I should find very little except the sort of protestations we have heard from them to support. However, we will assume that they mean to administer justice fairly, and if they do that, no doubt the provision, modified in the way I propose to modify this 4th clause, would be one that would conduce to a fair administration of justice in Ireland. We know that it does not conduce to a fair administration of justice in Ireland, nor to the public belief that it is fair, or intended to be fair, when there is a change of venue such as took place in the case of the Maamtrasna murders. I have no sympathy for the Maamtrasna murderers; I do not believe anyone outside their own wretched circle had any sympathy with them, yet I think that everyone, no matter who he may be, is entitled to a fair trial. Everyone who is to be put upon his defence wants a fair trial; and I do not think it conduced to the fair administration of justice in Ireland, or to the confidence of the public in the fair administration of justice, that these poor wretched people, speaking not a word of English, were moved for trial out of their own neighbourhood, and taken 60 miles away, where there was difficulty in getting witnesses, where the people were not familiar with the locality of the murder, and brought before a jury, in a certain sense, of foreigners, who did not even speak the language of these poor people, and with whom the prisoners could have no communication whatever except through the medium of an interpreter——

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

DR. COMMINS

I am calling attention to what has been the practice in Ireland in regard to these trials. In former Acts, there was a power given to remove trials from one part of Ireland to another; but I doubt if a single instance can be adduced in which that power was exercised in such a way as to command the confidence of the people of the country, or as to have secured acquiescence on the part of the public in the fairness of the trial and the justice of the verdict. I have watched these trials for the last 25 or 30 years—so long, in fact, as I have been competent to examine these matters at all; and I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), to name a single instance where, in the last dozen Coercion Acts, powers such as those which will be given under this clause were conferred, and where a change of venue has taken place, where that change was not afterwards challenged by public opinion, and where the Law Officers of the Crown had not the direst imputations made against them, and made against them with justice, and where the verdict was not chal- lenged as that of a partial or packed jury. I challenge these learned Gentlemen to produce a single instance in the history of previous Coercion Acts where a single removal like this did what it ought to have done—namely, to have secured acquiescence in the fairness of the verdict and of the trial. If we look at previous experience in Ireland, this provision that we are now discussing stands condemned unless modified in the manner in which I am now proposing to modify it. If the same spirit actuated the administrators of the law in Ireland as actuates the administrators of the law in England, I should not object to a provision of this kind; indeed, I should welcome it; I should take it in the form in which it stands in the Bill. We know that there are few changes of venue made in England; but we know that from the beginning, when this system of alteration of venue commenced, that the power has never been exercised in a single instance where the friends of the accused have been able to say that it was exercised for political or partizan purposes, or where they could say that it was not exercised in such a way as to provide a fairer trial than could otherwise have been had. We all remember the first occasion upon which this alteration in the law took place in England. We all know the method that was adopted in order to enable a case to be transferred from the country to the Central Criminal Court, when there was fair ground for supposing that a fair trial could not be had in the country. That was under "Palmer's Act." From the time of the passing of that Act down to the present time this alteration of venue has taken place very seldom indeed. I do not think 20 cases have occurred altogether; but in all the cases that have occurred the result was in every case to command the confidence of the country in both the fairness of the trial and the justness of the verdict. Does anyone suppose that such a result attends the alteration of venue in Ireland? Does anyone suppose that the Law Officers in Ireland, who are invested with autocratic power by this Act to move trials from one place to another as they think fit, will exercise that power as it is exercised in England? Nothing of the sort. You will have one set of people in the North who will always expect to have their trials kept at home, as were the trials at Omagh in the last Winter Assizes, so that the prisoners can have a jury selected out of their own sworn brotherhood. You have another class of people, in another part of Ireland, who will expect that their cases will be moved, as was the Maamtrasna trial, from Galway to Dublin, and so on, in order that a jury might be packed with confidence and certainty. So that Ireland is in such a state that you can have no removal of venue in criminal cases from one province to another which would not be suspected, and, I venture to say, suspected with justice, of having been arranged with a corrupt motive, and with the object of procuring a conviction. I ask is it advisable or right in the state in which we find public opinion at the present time in Ireland to add fresh fuel to fire? Is it wise to give fresh impetus to this suspicion that exists in Ireland, on the part of five-sixths of the people, that the very fountain of justice is poisoned, and that a fair trial cannot be had in any case in which there is an agrarian or political element? Is it fair or just in those who wish to induce confidence in the administration of justice to introduce a provision of this sort, which will destroy the last vestige of confidence remaining—which I venture to say is very small indeed—in the administration of justice in Ireland? Can it be said that if the Amendment I propose is adopted, anything is done which will interfere with a fair trial being had? If a crime of a political or agrarian character occurs in Cork, you will have power to change the venue to the Province of Leinster, for a trial can be removed to Dublin, where, amongst the special jury class, you have a number of persons dependent upon the Executive in every sort of way. You have practically persons upon the special jury panel to choose from, five-sixths of whom I should say are either directly or indirectly dependent upon Dublin Castle. I venture to say that not even the Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland will contradict me when I say that out of those special jurors dependent on the Castle—those tradesmen or people in the Excise or Customs, those Resident Magistrates, and those people of a variety of callings who come to Dublin to be near the Castle—the Executive would always be able to get a jury prejudiced against the prisoner, no matter where he comes from. No one, I think, will contradict that. If I had to select a jury myself for a trial of my own, I certainly would not go to Dublin. If I were charged with an agrarian or political offence, I should say that the Dublin panel would be hostile to me, and that I should not have a fair trial; and yet, under this Amendment, I would allow the Law Officers of the Crown to bring persons, if they think fit, to be tried there by a special jury, chosen from a panel prejudiced in favour of the Crown, and, if prejudice can exist in such a case, prejudiced against the prisoner. That being so, provision is in this Amendment made for a trial such as the Law Officers of the Crown, the promoters of this Bill, ought to be completely satisfied with. Conviction is what they want, and conviction is what they will get in Dublin, if they can pack a jury as completely as they did in the Maamtrasna case, as completely as they did in the case of the Phœnix Park murders, and as completely as they did in the Poole case, and as completely as they did in other cases, 50 of which I could mention if I was not afraid of delaying the Committee. Yet if the Law Officers of the Crown do this in Dublin, they have to do it in the full light of public opinion. There are 20 newspapers that will have their reporters watching everything that is done, and they will have to take action with that check which a fear of public opinion or public reprobation imposes, the only check, I am sorry to say, we have upon the Government in Ireland—the only semblance of a check which we have as a guarantee that fair trials will take place. I say the only semblance of a check. If we cannot get the reality, let us have the semblance. Pack the jury as you did in the Phœnix Park case, as you did in the Maamtrasna case, and as you did in the other case I have referred to, but, under the check I have suggested, you will have to observe a certain amount of moderation in the packing. You will not be able to do it in such a way as to outrage public opinion and the simplest principles of justice, as you did in Galway, and as you did in Sligo. You cannot outrage public opinion in Dublin as you did in Sligo, a few months ago, where your jury-pack- ing was not only a disgrace to the administration of justice, but to all the traditions of jurisprudence and of fair play in England, as well as in Ireland. I object, Sir, to jury packing in the Irish Provinces, where it is done in holes and corners without publicity, and with no check even of the weakest kind from the Bench. We never expect anything from the Bench in Ireland in matters of this kind, because it is the obedient henchman of the Crown, as it abundantly showed itself in Sligo.

THE CHAIRMAN

It seems to me that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman are directed to an Amendment which has been already rejected—namely, that the change of venue should be exclusively to the County of the City of Dublin. The hon. Member should confine his argument to his own Amendment, and not extend it to one which has already been rejected.

DR. COMMINS

I was not aware, Sir, that that portion of my Amendment—for it is only a portion of it—had been dealt with at all. At all events, it stands in my Amendment that when you have provided that each Province should try its own cases, you have still the power of change of venue to Dublin, and I was pointing out that under this Amendment the Crown will have power to obtain juries of the kind they desire, which power ought to be sufficient, without seeking further opportunities for the alteration of venue. I think, however, I have said enough to make myself understood upon that point, and I do not wish to say more than is necessary to put my case before the House. I will now take another branch of the subject. We, in Ireland, are supposed to possess all the privileges of the British Constitution. Well, a greater fallacy historically, morally, and legally, never received the acceptance of any considerable number of sane people in this world. The British Constitution we practically never had in Ireland; the British Constitution we have not now, and even if we had it, this Bill would materially destroy it, and every shred of it would be taken away by the clause I am proposing to amend. The last particle of it would be taken away unless the Amendment I propose were accepted. In England, the very essence of trial by jury, and the good quality that is supposed to recommend it to the people, to the Legislature, to the Judges, to the jurymen themselves, and to the accused, is this—that a jury should be drawn from the vicinity and the neighbourhood of the place in which the offence has been committed. Now, we drift into what is practically useful, not as a consequence of any political theory, because the theory comes after, but from human necessity and the desire to do right that is always working in the world. By instinct we have drifted into this condition of things, which is one of the safeguards of the British Constitution. Very few charges of a criminal kind can be made in which a strict administration of justice, particularly the doing of full and impartial justice to the accused, does not require on the part of the Judges a local knowledge and a knowledge of the locus in quo. We all remember—it was discussed in this House so fully that I doubt whether there is an hon. Member listening to me who has not the facts impressed upon his mind—wo all remember that in the famous Maamtrasna case, that which was believed to have led to a failure on the part of the Dublin jury who tried the case was through their utter ignorance of the locus in quo. A man stated that, in a district where there was no hedge to cover him, nor ditch to conceal him, on a moonlight, or, at any rate, on a fair night, he walked three miles behind a party of murderers without being discovered. That statement was received by the Dublin jury, who did not know the neighbourhood, but it would not have been received for an instant by 12 jurors drawn from the neighbourhood who would have been familiar with the character of the locality. But no matter how the local jury in that case had arrived at their verdict, and no matter what their verdict might have been, if they had been drawn from the locality it would not have been said that they had, in giving their verdict, fallen into error through utter ignorance of the locus in quo. Before a local jury, if a statement is made by a witness which violates their knowledge of the locality, and violates their knowledge of the circumstances which have occurred at the time the crime was committed, they will be able to correct it. This is the best guarantee we can have for the administration of justice fairly and purely—that the jury which tries a case shall be brought out of the neighbourhood, and shall have all the necessary local knowledge, provided they are free from prejudice. If there is any suspicion of their being prejudiced, then my Amendment provides that the prisoner shall be taken out of the district to Dublin. That is a thing which, since the trial of Palmer, has been found an excellent provision in the administration of the law in England; but that is to be abolished in Ireland. Why is it to be abolished in Ireland? We wait to hear the arguments that are to be used in support of the abolition of one of the oldest traditions of English trial by jury—a characteristic that for 1,200 or 1,300 years has been found to work so well in England, and which has only been done away with by Act of Parliament for a special purpose, which Act of Parliament has only been availed of some 20 times. Why do you seek to abolish in Ireland the principle for which I am pleading? Is it because you expect to find jurors in Antrim who will have a better knowledge of Kerry than a jury taken from the Province of Minister, and vice versâ? Suppose the person to be tried is a Kerry Moonlighter. He is a person whom we all dislike. I do not think the dislike of the Kerry Moonlighter is more intense on the Treasury Bench than it is on these Benches; but the Kerry Moonlighters, as well as everybody else, should have justice. From everything we hear from the other side, the Executive is anxious to give him justice. That is well; everyone is entitled to have justice; but do you think that if a young man charged with Moonlighting was sent from Kerry to be tried in Antrim by a jury of Orangemen he would receive justice? I do not think he would any more than I believe that an Antrim Orangeman would get justice if tried in Kerry. "Oh," say the Law Officers of the Crown, "you must trust to us." But when was this new principle introduced into the British Constitution I should like to know? Why, the whole theory at the bottom of the Constitution is that you are not to trust anybody—you are not to trust Judges, or even the Crown itself—but are to provide checks to prevent them from going wrong. It is only when you have these checks to prevent them from going wrong that you can trust them. And that is all that we want now. We want a check upon the Law Officers of the Crown. We want to carry out the ordinary, trite principles of the British Constitution. We do not say that the Irish Law Officers will go wrong; but we want to have the power of checking them if they show a disposition to go wrong. These Crown Officials say to us—"Trust to us, and we will see that everything is done fairly and properly." I dare say they are sincere in what they say; but I do not want people's liberty to depend upon the sincerity of those Gentlemen, because we know that not infrequently men who are sincere enough in their convictions go very wrong in their practice. We know that we cannot always prevent wrong being done. I ask the Committee to allow this one ancient principle of the British Constitution to be still preserved. Nearly all the rest are gone from us. Preserve this one. Let the trial take place within the locality, or, at any rate, in the near neighbourhood of the place where the crime has been committed, where the local knowledge exists—where a knowledge of the prisoners and the places exists on the jury panel. Act on the principle that prisoners in Ireland are entitled to the privileges that people in England possess, unless there are peculiar circumstances in the case, as there were in the case of Palmer; and if peculiar circumstances do arise, then, as I have said, you can change the venue to Dublin. But that is not all; there is another of these safeguards of the British Constitution which have been provided by experience, and that we have drifted into by that instinct to do right, to which I have already referred, which is violated by this Bill. There is another safeguard rendered nugatory, null, and void, and that is the right of challenging jurymen, which is preserved by law to a prisoner. The prisoner has a right to challenge. The Crown has also a right to challenge, no doubt. After 27 years of practice at the English Bar; after having practised as a defending counsel at the English Bar more, perhaps, than any man living, I can say that I have never known the Crown to exercise that right of challenge in this country to the prejudice of a prisoner. In the whole of my 27 years' experience I have never known a case in this country where there was even a suspicion of jury-packing. I have never known a case where the Crown has challenged anyone, and probably only about a dozen cases where jurymen have been challenged by prisoners. In this country justice is administered fairly, and neither the Crown nor the prisoner has anything to complain of. The Crown does not order jurymen to stand aside. But what do you find in Ireland—what did you find in Sligo the other day, what did you find in Cork, and what did you find elsewhere?

THE CHAIRMAN

I fail to see the relevancy of the arguments the hon. Member is using to the Amendment he is proposing.

DR. COMMINS

If you fail to see the relevancy attaching to my arguments, Sir, that is entirely my fault, and very much my fault, because I am sure there is no one cleverer at seeing the drift of an argument than yourself. One sentence will show you the relevancy of my remarks, and it is this, that a fair trial depends as much upon the right of challenge which the prisoner has as anything else. That right of challenging the jury which a prisoner possesses secures to him a fair trial in Ireland, more perhaps than anything else, and if a trial is removed, as I was putting the case just now, from Antrim to Kerry, or from Kerry to Antrim, where the prisoner does not know a single living soul in the county, how is he to exercise his right of challenge? I will take the case of a Kerry Moonlighter—no, I will not say a Moonlighter, but I will say the lad who was sent to prison for six months' recently for printing a supposed seditious document in the office of a Kerry newspaper. Suppose this lad had the same privilege in Ireland as he would have had if tried in England—namely, the privilege of being tried by his peers, and. supposing the trial was removed from Kerry to Antrim, how would he be able to pick out the rabid Orangeman who would come up to take his place on the jury, and who needed only an accusation, and no proof at all, in order to convict? How would this lad manage his challenges? He would not know the men who were so prejudiced as to require no proof, and who were so angry with him and with his political party as to be prepared to give a conviction upon nothing more than an accusation. By this change of venue the right of challenge is abolished. That is how I intended to put it, Sir, and it is entirely my fault that I failed to make the matter appear relevant. I maintain that a man in Munster would have some chance of a fair trial so long as the case was kept in Munster. I maintain, further, that if anything peculiar occurs in the case you may take it from Munster to Dublin. I protest against the idea that retaining a case in the Province in which the crime has occurred is likely to give a man a partial jury. Take a Kerry Moonlighter to Waterford, and he will get very little consideration there, although he will get justice. The connection between neighbouring counties will be sufficient to enable the accused to exercise his Constitutional right of challenge; but if the venue is changed from one end of Ireland to the other, the prisoner maybe placed in the midst of a population hostile to him, and he may be utterly incapable of exercising his right of challenge. Primâ facie, then I say, by the power which this clause gives, a prisoner will be utterly deprived of his right of challenge. My Amendment will enable him to exercise that right; and I provide against anything unfair happening by saying that if you move a man up to Dublin the Executive will be able to get a jury of their own sort—at all events, they will be able to get one which is not prejudiced in favour of the prisoner. That is my argument. I say confine your removal of venue to the Provinces. In the Provinces there is enough local knowledge to render the right of challenge that the prisoner has something actual and something real; but if you do not confine the removal to the Provinces you abolish surreptitiously the right of challenge which the prisoner possesses, and which I hold to be one of the best provisions of the British Constitution. I say do not abolish that, but restrict the right of removal to fair and proper limits. Restrict it to the Provinces and from the Provinces to Dublin, and when you have done that you will have secured a fair trial in every case and a jury that certainly will not be prejudiced in favour of the prisoner. I think I have gone over the whole argument. I never expected for one moment either to interest Gentlemen opposite or to secure their approval. I have been too long in this House to flatter myself that I am able either to convince or to persuade hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. It is very hard indeed for a Member on these Benches to imagine that he is able to do that. Though I offer these observations to the House, they are practically not intended for the purpose of convincing the Treasury Bench, but they are intended for hon. Members of this House, some of whom have still, I hope, an open mind upon these questions. My observations are intended for those hon. Gentlemen and for the country. We have been told over and over again that we have to impugn this Act before the country, if it is possible to do so, because the case is being tried even more palpably and openly in the country than it is being tried here. We have the public Press teeming with arguments that I find repeated almost verbatim, and with an accuracy that is creditable to their memories, by right hon. Gentlemen of the Tory Party. We find not later than this day a letter paraded in the papers from a right hon. Gentleman, writing from Rochdale, in which attention is called to this very fact to which I have referred—namely, that there are a body of people in Ulster hostile to the rest of the country. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be so ignorant of the facts he is writing about, that he describes what he calls the loyal population of Ireland at about one-third of the population of the country. The right hon. Gentleman, talking in that strain, scarcely deserves notice, and he certainly would not receive it if his utterances were confined to his letter of to-day, and if it were not for his previous services to the State. But when we find such statements put forward as are put forward by this right hon. Gentleman, that Ulster is a different nation, that the feelings of Ulster are alienated from the rest of Ireland, that it constitutes practically a hostile population; and when powers are asked for by the framers of this Bill to transfer cases from Cork or Kerry or Waterford or Carlow to Ulster, where the people are described as aliens, I say that the Committee must see the necessity for my Amendment. We are told that the Ulster people have hostile feelings, that they will not submit to common government with the rest of Ireland; and when powers such as are contained in this clause are claimed, it is time I say to call the attention of the public to the arguments used in support of the authors of this measure, and to turn these arguments round against those who use them. I say, if it is a fact—as this right hon. Gentleman writing from Rochdale declares it is—that Ulster is hostile to the rest of Ireland, and is, in fact, a foreign order in Ireland, I ask with what show of justice is power claimed by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland and the Treasury Bench to transfer the trial of people from Kerry and Water-ford, from Cork, or Clare, or Galway, to Belfast, or other parts of Ulster? With what show of justice or fair play do the Government seek powers to send these young women from Bodyke for trial before juries selected in Ulster? In this matter I appeal to the instinct of fair play of the people of England—I appeal to the sense of what is right in criminal jurisprudence which has been nurtured by centuries of fair trial. I trust that their instinct of fair play will revolt against this attempt to deprive the people of Ireland of the simplest, commonest, and plainest guarantee which the people have for fair play and justice in trials in this country.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, after the word "certificate," to insert the words, "Provided always that nothing in this Act shall empower the removal of any trial from any of the four provinces to anywhere outside of such provinces, except the County of the City of Dublin."—(Dr. Commins.)

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

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

I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Roscommon (Dr. Commins) who moved this Amendment will not think I am guilty of any discourtesy if in reply to his observations I do not occupy anything like the length of time which he took in introducing his proposal. He has had a great advantage in moving his Amendment, because he seems to have come fresh to the House at a rather advanced hour of the evening, and does not seem to be aware of the fact that this clause is now under discussion for the second day, and that every argument he has adduced has already been brought forward again and again. Of course coming in, as he does, not having taken any previous part in the rather protracted debates which have occurred on this clause, he possesses a great deal of energy, and is able to speak at great length. He is to be congratulated, because now, on the 11th or 12th night of the Committee on this Bill, he has succeeded, at this late hour of the evening, in making the longest speech that has been delivered up to this point. As regards the particular Amendment the hon. Member has moved there has been one advantage to me in his speech, because he has always contrived to answer his own arguments two or three sentences later on. In the beginning of his speech he showed that Dublin was the worst venue in all Ireland as far as criminals were concerned. He submitted that we should rest satisfied with the opportunity of changing the venue to Dublin for the reason that trial of prisoners there would lead to the certainty of a conviction. He would have us think that, in this way, he is making a most extraordinary concession to us. But then he went on to say that in Dublin everything occurs in the light of day, and that everything was published. But he forgot that his own Amendment enables a change of venue to take place from one county to another in the same Province, and I suppose the light of publicity is to be found no more in one part of a Province than in another, and no more in one Province than in another Province. He then fell back on another argument, and said that what he wanted was that those changes should be more or less local, as it is very desirable indeed that a prisoner should know something of the jurors before whom his case is to be brought, so that he might be able to challenge. If a Moonlighter from Kerry were to be tried the hon. Gentleman said let him be taken to Waterford; but the hon. Member must not overlook the fact that the divisions of Province are purely artificial, and that you may take a prisoner from the extreme end of one county to the extreme end of another—it might be with other counties intervening—and that this would, to all intents and purposes, be taking him into a strange neighbourhood. It would be possible to change a case from Donegal to Belfast, or from Donegal to Downpatrick, between which places there is very little connection; and then it would be impossible to take a case from Donegal to either Leitrim or Sligo, although the counties adjoin, and there is great community of interest between them. Whatever other Amendments may be moved with regard to restricting the change of venue, I must say there is nothing logical in the hon. Member's proposal, or in the arguments by which he has supported it. I trust the Committee will not accept this Amendment, and will not consider it necessary to go to a Division.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I am rather surprised that the Government do not assent to this Amendment considering what is the preamble of the clause we are now discussing—namely— Whereas 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, the object, we are told of this clause is to secure more fair and impartial trials. Has the Government, at any stage on the debates upon this Bill, either in the second reading, or in the debates upon this clause, alleged or endeavoured to maintain the position that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had for all sorts of crimes in Ireland in the City of Dublin? This is really a matter of the first importance. It is because we know well that in the City of Dublin for upwards of 100 years you have had a series of trials of a political and agrarian character, and no one has ever heard it alleged in this House that there has ever been a failure of justice there. But, Sir, our case is a great deal stronger than that, because under the clause that we have just passed, the Government can bring these cases before special juries in the City of Dublin, and do they mean to say that a fair and impartial trial as they have intimated cannot be had by packing a special jury out of the City of Dublin? There is no use mincing matters with respect to this clause. We know perfectly well what we want to avoid, and I greatly fear that the Government know perfectly well what they want to obtain. We want to avoid the special jury panel of the County of Dublin; and I can conceive no motive for the Government in persisting in the refusal of this most reasonable and moderate Amendment, except this, that they desire to retain power to send their political opponents in Ire- land before the special jury panel of the County of Dublin or of Belfast. Of course, it would be a good thing to pass a provision taking away from the Government the power of changing the venue from any of the three Southern Provinces to the Province of Ulster. But even if the Government had consented to that, it would, in my opinion, have left the matter very much as it now stands; because so long as they have power to go before a special jury panel in Dublin, with the powers of jury packing which they possess, it is ridiculous to suppose that they would want any further power. We have heard a great deal of mock heroics talked outside, and I dare say we shall hear a great deal talked here about the hardship that will be inflicted by Sub-section 2 of this clause. Why, Sub-section 2 is a piece of supererogation. You do not want that if you have power to go before a special jury. There is no tribunal before which a man who is suspected of being an Irish peasant, or who is suspected of sympathizing with an Irish farmer, or who is suspected of holding Home Rule or National views in Ireland—there is no tribunal in the world worse for such a man to go before than a packed jury out of the panel of the County of Dublin; and it is a perfect fallacy and simple nonsense to talk about leaving out the 2nd sub-section of this clause. The real point is, are you to bring Irish peasants, and those who sympathize with them, before a packed jury out of the panel of the County of Dublin; because if you are, you need not go on any further—you need do nothing more. Talk about trial before a Commission of Irish Judges! I would 20,000 times rather stand my trial before a Commission of Irish Judges than go before a packed jury in the County of Dublin. Talk about a change of venue from Ireland to England! I would 100,000 times rather be tried by a jury of Englishmen than go before a jury of the County of Dublin, who hate the ground I walk on, and who do not want evidence, but would be content to convict me out of the newspapers. I say that if this clause stands as it is now framed, and if prisoners of the class I have referred to are to be sent before these juries for trial, you might just as well insert a short clause in the Bill declaring that every Nationalist is guilty of any crime the Lord Lieutenant may choose to impute to him.

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

I am not sanguine that the Government will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. At an early period of the evening the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), in replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), said that reasonable Amendments had been proposed by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposition Benches, and by others; but in making that admission he seemed to forget that not a single one of those reasonable Amendments had been accepted, consequently I am not very sanguine that this Amendment will be accepted. The Government have to thank themselves for our being compelled to bring forward this proposal, because the measure is drafted in such a way as to make it necessary to put forward such attempts as these in order to make it a reasonable measure. It is a singular thing that, since the Whitsuntide Holidays, not a single Amendment has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, though Amendments much more reasonable than some submitted earlier on, and accepted, have been proposed. The Amendment before the Committee now merely asks that the peasants of Ireland may not be placed before juries who are picked out and selected because of their political opinions. We ask that the peasants from Kerry may not be sent before a jury selected from a panel of Antrim or Belfast. We hear a great deal from hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House with regard to want of respect for law and order in Ireland; but we contend that the very action they are now taking will render it impossible for the people of Ireland to respect law and order when administered in this spirit. What is more contrary to the spirit of law and order than to place a political or agrarian prisoner before a jury of political partizans? I would say it would be much better not to go before a jury at all, but to declare a man guilty at once, because conviction, under such circumstances, is simply a foregone conclusion. We hear a great deal about the people of Ulster not being in sympathy with the great majority of the people of Ireland; but we, Sir, know that we have the majority of the people of Ulster with us. But it must be remembered that if the venue of these trials is moved to Ulster the Executive will not seek a jury out of the ordinary jury panel, but will seek one from the special jury list; and those special juries are all of them either Orangemen or Freemasons. Freemasonry in this country has little political significance, but in Ireland it is quite the reverse; and we know from experience, and from the Report of the Commission appointed by the present Government, what an Orangeman means in the North of Ireland. Now, there is little or no intimidation of jurors in Leinster, Munster, or Connaught—of any class of jurors who conscientiously endeavour to discharge their duties. There is no such thing as intimidation of jurors where the law is conscientiously administered; and it is a rare case, indeed, to find such intimidation when the law is not being conscientiously administered. As I said, I am not sanguine that the Government will accept this Proviso, which we think absolutely necessary for safeguarding the interests of the people. Nevertheless, it is our bounden duty to test the views of the Committee upon the matter.

SIB GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I think the effect of this Amendment is the same as one I have lower down.

An hon. MEMBER: No; that is not so.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway. N.)

I hope when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) is placed upon the Irish Bench he will not treat a prisoner that may be brought before him with the same levity, and the same contempt, which he showed to-night to the arguments of the Representatives of the Irish people. He himself is elected to this House by an extremely restricted constituency, and he hardly thought it worth his while to advance a single argument against this most important proposition of my hon. Friend. The matter is one of most vital importance to those who do not represent restricted constituencies. It is of vital consequence to three Provinces, at least, in Ireland—I do not say it is of so much consequence to Ulster. I do not suppose that the present Government, who have nearly half the Ulstermen to support them, would risk offending the people of Ulster by sending down cases from that Province to be tried in Cork or Galway. I do not suppose there is a precedent for such a thing as that. The only shadow of an argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was this—that the County of Donegal is nearer to Sligo than Belfast; but it is true that if you wish to change the venue from Donegal the proper place to send a man to would be Belfast. At the same time, it would be a most unreasonable thing to send a man from Cork or from Kerry to Belfast for trial. We do not object so much to the venue being changed to the City of Dublin, for there is an enormous constituency there, although an exceedingly large proportion holds opinions diametrically opposed to those of the great mass of the people of Ireland, or those of the population of three and a-half of the Provinces. We wish to prevent the people of Galway and Mayo, and so on, from being sent for trial into totally foreign regions, so to speak, such as the City of Belfast. That, I think, is a fair proposal to make. This is not peculiarly a question affecting the Irish nation, but the point as to where a case shall be tried has been held of great importance both in England and in France. There is a notable case which occurred in England of which I would remind the Committee—the case of Governor Eyre. He was advised—and advised by a very able solicitor—to go and domicile himself in one of the Midland counties when he came to England, because there he would be sure of an aristocratic and Conservative jury. He followed that advice, and, as a result, he was acquitted. A very different result might have happened if Governor Eyre had allowed himself to be tried in one of our large Radical centres. Then, again, in France it was considered a great point for Prince Napoleon when his trial was fixed to take place at Tours, where there was an aristocratic population favourable to the Empire. Prince Napoleon was tried for his life, I believe, and it was considered a very great point that he was able to have the trial amongst a favourable population. What we want to arrive at is this—that we should not be able to pass certain limits in changing your venue limitations which have been very well known in Ireland for a long time— the limits of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. The Conservative and the so-called Liberal Unionist journals every day point out the enormous difference between Ulster and the other Provinces. Well, we want to establish that, and in the same way we object to having our people tried in England or Scotland, because we conceive that serious damage will be done to prisoners if they are taken out of their own Province. But we are willing to allow that there are certain important cases which, perhaps, ought to be tried in the heart of the country; and we therefore propose in this Amendment to allow the Executive to take cases to the County of the City of Dublin. We say to the Government, rest satified with the Provinces of Ireland, the least of which has five counties in it. We say, try prisoners in the heart of the country—in what has always been the chief town of the country. We say, go before the City of Dublin where there are some people connected with the land, but where the types of landlord and tenant are much less bitter than they are in Belfast, and other parts of Ulster if you like. We say, do not take cases from the South and West of Ireland to Belfast, where there is strong antipathy between people of the two religions. We also say, do not let this matter be treated in the contemptuous manner in which it has been treated up to the present. I ask how would an Ulster Orangeman like to be sent to New York for trial; yet I believe many people in Galway would think they would get a fairer trial there than they would at the hands of some Ulster jurors.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

I have an Amendment on the same principle as that which is before the Committee, only in a mitigated form, and I would ask that something of the kind should be accepted. What I would propose is a practice somewhat similar to that in existence in England and Scotland. I do not know the details as to England, but in Scotland if you wish to move a case from a part of the country where you do not think there is likely to be a fair trial you bring it to the Central Criminal Court in Edinburgh. That was the course followed in the case of the Scotch crofters, and I hope that that is a course which will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Se- cretary for Ireland, who is a Scotchman, inasmuch as it is the well-established practice in Scotland. It seems to me a monstrous proposal to take a Nationalist for trial from, say, the South of Ireland to Belfast, or to take an Ulsterman for trial to Kerry. I will not throw aspersions upon the honour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whoever he may be; but we must bear in mind that the Irish Attorney General is not a permanent official, and that he is a Member of the Executive Government, and that as such it is necessary for him to act in an administrative capacity. I maintain, therefore, that it is unfair to put in his hands as a prosecutor and a Member of the Executive the power of declaring that a trial shall be removed to a county selected by him, and not to the Central Criminal Court, as is the practice in England and Scotland. I do hope that the Government will consider this a reasonable Amendment, and that some concession will be made. It seems that this is the more necessary, because a little further on there is an ambiguity in the matter. As the Government propose that the law should stand the Attorney General for Ireland may propose one place for the trial and the defendant may propose another, and apparently the Court is not to exercise a discretion in the matter, but it is to choose between the two, so that if the Crown proposes Belfast, and the defendant proposes Kerry, owing to the ambiguity of the wording of the clause, it seems as if the Court were to be bound to decide between the two, and could not select some intermediate place. But the real point is whether you will allow a man from one place to be taken to another where extreme views against his party may prevail, instead of taking these cases to the Central Criminal Court.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

If the Government were disposed to look upon any proposition in a reasonable spirit they surely would think this a reasonable one, and would accept it. I do not think the most ferocious partizan—the most disreputable and sanguinary partizan—in Ireland would allege that the state of any Province is such that within the four corners of that Province you could not find some jury to have something like a regard to the sacredness of their oath. Let me point out that our apprehensions on this subject are not at all imaginary. We have had some experience on this question in the past, for let me point out to the House that this protection which is interposed in this clause—this protection of the High Court to which the defendant may appeal if an improper or unreasonable venue is selected—has in the past been found perfectly futile. There was a case which excited great interest in this country and in Ireland, and as to which Party feeling was very strong indeed. It was a case in which the famous Mr. George Bolton brought an action against a Member of this House—Mr. William O'Brien. In that ease Mr. George Bolton laid his venue in the County of Antrim—practically in the Borough of Belfast—though of course, as everybody knew, the offence had been committed in Dublin. Well, Sir, what happened? In that case Mr. O'Brien went very naturally to the High Court in Ireland and said—"It is a monstrously unfair thing that my opponent here should be permitted to lay the venue among my enemies in Belfast. That is not fair play, and I ask the High Court to exercise the power which is always exercised in such cases, the power of changing the venue." But, Sir, as we might expect from our experience of its action in Ireland, the High Court had the highest opinion of Belfast jurors, and refused to change the venue, and their decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal, with the result that of course Mr. O'Brien, so far as a Belfast jury could do it, was mulcted in heavy damages, notwithstanding that he had proved his case over and over against this Mr. George Bolton. I say that experience of that kind shows conclusively that the protection given by this clause of an appeal to the High Court is entirely illusory—it is a hollow shield, and gives the defendant no protection whatsoever, and it would be open to the Crown in Ireland—if they should take it into their heads to do so—to bring up their political opponents and try them in hostile venues, such as we say exists at Belfast. Now, Sir, I confess that I am surprised that our arguments on this point are not listened to with more respect in that quarter of the House, because we are constantly told by a certain class of Members that Ireland consists of two races, and that one lives up in Ulster, while the other race lives in the South, and that the most deplorable consequences would follow if those two races are brought into conflict together. Is it not a monstrous thing that gentlemen who profess or pretend to hold these views should declare that as between members of these two races, who may be supposed to be in conflict, they should consider it fair that members of the one race should be taken, say, from Munster, and practically tried by their enemies in the Province of Ulster. Now, Sir, let me point out another thing. Of course, it may be said that we argue the contrary of this, and that an argument founded on this allegation does not come with a good grace from us. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) told us a while ago on another Amendment that it is our boast that a majority of the Ulster men are decided Nationalists. That is so; but let me point out what is the real state of things. Ulster is Nationalist so far as regards the majority of its inhabitants. That is our allegation. But, in the first place, the panels of jurors—both the panel of special jurors and the panel of common jurors—do not in any sense represent the population of Ulster. Under the old franchise every man who had a valuation of £12 had a vote; but in 30 out of the 32 counties you could not put a man even upon the common jury unless he had a valuation of £40, and that shows that in Ulster the jury would be drawn from persons not of our way of thinking. The holdings in Ulster are very small, for the land has been subdivided very largely, and very few of the tenants have rents of much more than £12, so that even the common jury is drawn from persons who are hostile to us, and who are our political enemies. That being so, I do think the Government might have yielded in reference to this Amendment. It is idle to say that as regards any of the four Provinces of Ireland it is not possible for them to find, in some corner of each Province, some place where they could not find a jury panel out of which, with their facilities, they would not be able to get a jury to ensure a conviction. They have boasted of it—that even under the present system the law was perfectly capable of enforcement at the Winter Assizes, owing to the facilities of inter-provincial change of venue which this Bill would give; and all we ask of them is to acknowledge that within the four corners of each of the four Provinces there is, at least, one spot where they can get a jury to try a prisoner to their liking. They should give effect to that, and to their experience of it.

MR. COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I know, Mr. Courtney, how vain it is to expect that any suggestion from this side of the House will he accepted by the Government; but I gather that the only reason for opposition to the Amendment on the part of the Government of the day is that they do desire to take the Nationalists of the South and try them by juries in the North. Whatever may be the future of Ireland—under whatever system Ireland may be governed in future, whether by a separate Parliament or by National Councils, I should have thought that any man who had a desire for the prosperity and happiness of that country would wish to bury as much as he could the animosities that at present run there; and I should have thought that no man would desire to emphasize and enlarge and perpetuate the distinctions that lay between one portion of that country and another. But how can you more perpetuate distinctions of that kind and cultivate the animosities which unfortunately and unhappily exist there at present—how can you do that more successfully than by opposing an Amendment of this kind, and by saying that you are going to take persons from one class and one creed in one portion of the country and try them by persons of another class and another creed in another portion, and try them so because they are of another class and another creed, and are in another portion of the country? I should hope even these remarks of mine may have some effect on the Benches opposite; but, at any rate, we shall give colour to these views, and show the country that the desire of the Government is not for the real happiness and prosperity of Ireland, but to emphasize and perpetuate the distinctions which exist.

DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

I have put forward five points in support of the Amendment. One is that, under the Amendment I propose, there will be ample and sufficient security for the fair trial of any offence that occurs. There will be, first, the choice of the county in each Province, and after that the choice of a jury in Dublin, which jury, as I pointed out, would be not prejudiced in favour of the prisoner. I venture to say that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland [Mr. Holmes), who has spoken after me, has not answered a single solitary one of my arguments, and has not contravened or dealt with them. I venture to say that the proposed system would place in the hands of the Attorney General the power of securing an absolutely certain conviction, irrespective of right or truth or justice, whenever he thought fit. No answer has been given, or attempted to he given, to that. He has said instead—"Oh, trust to me. I am infallible and fair, and my successor will be the same." I used another argument—that it would form an intolerable grievance on the prisoners tried, who might be brought from persons of their own race and religion and habits of life and thought, and tried by persons who could not even understand the language they spoke, and they might be brought 50 or 60 or even 300 miles away, where they could not call their witnesses. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has not answered a single one of my arguments. I gave another argument in support of the Amendment—that it would destroy one of the oldest grounds of fair trial known to the English Constitution—the selection of the jury in the vicinity from men who know something of the prisoner and of his habits and class and life and locality. Has he answered that? Not in any shape or way. He has not noticed it. Then I adduced another argument, and not an attempt has been made to meet any of them. The next argument was that it would utterly destroy and render nugatory the right of challenge. It would take a man from Kerry, where he knows the people and his lawyers know him, and try him in Antrim, where he knows nothing of the people, and where the people hate his very name and race. If you do that his right of challenge is a farce, and is utterly ludicrous. That has not been answered; it has not been attempted to be denied. Now, Mr. Courtney, I submit that when arguments of that kind, based not only on ordinary common sense, but on truth and justice, are used, they require at least an answer, and no answer whatever has been given to them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 225: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 206.) [10.45 P.M.]

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I Leg to move the next Amendment—namely, in line 29, after "certificate," to add— Provided, that this section shall not apply in the case of any trial to be at a court of assize or commission for any county of a city or county of a town. My Amendment is only directed to a portion of the clause. It is the universal experience at Irish Assizes that, no matter what may be the state of things in Irish counties, such localities as these I name have always been peaceful and free from crime, even in the most disturbed times. I think that the Government should recognize that state of things by accepting the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, after the word "certificate," to insert the words—"Provided, that this section shall not apply in the case of any trial to be at a court of assize or commission for any county of a city or county of a town."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

We are unable to accept this Amendment for the same reasons which have been already given in answer to a former proposal to exclude boroughs from the operation of the section. The Committee will remember the arguments which were used.

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not assume that the Committee is familiar with the arguments addressed to it on this question. The vast proportion of the Committee was in the Smoking Room when the point was discussed; therefore to say that sufficient argument had been used to convince the Committee was rather self-flattery. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have convinced the Whips into saying "Aye" and "No" as they stood at the do or when Members came in. Under the circumstances, I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not entertain the idea that his arguments convinced the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

There is an Amendment I wish to propose, to remove an ambiguity in page 3, line 36. The section gives power, first, to the Attorney General to claim a change of venue, and then to the prisoner; and if the prisoner proposes to remove the venue to one county, and the Attorney General proposes to remove it to another, it goes on to say— Thereupon the High Court may order that the trial shall he had in that county in which it shall appear," &c. It seems to me that these words limit the discretion of the Court. I would move to leave out the word "that" before "county," in order to insert the word "any." This will enable the High Court to order that a trial shall be held in any county in which it shall appear that the trial can be most fairly and impartially had.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, leave out the word "that," in order to insert the word "any."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

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

I have no objection to this Amendment.

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

Surely the Government do not mean to accept an Amendment!

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'any' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move in line 37, after the word "had," to insert— Provided, that where an order has been made under this section, and the place of trial is changed accordingly, the trial shall not be held for at least ten days after such order shall have been served on each defendant interested. This Amendment is to make provision for what the Government say they are perfectly disposed to do. It is simply to provide that after a change of venue has been effected some provision shall be made to prevent the defendant being taken by surprise. Everybody knows that in an ordinary case, where a defendant makes all his preparations for a trial in a particular town, he is taken at a great disadvantage if the venue is suddenly changed. Such a change of venue may render it necessary for him to cancel all his preparations, and make new ones. The solicitor he has employed may not be able to go with him to the now venue, and he may have to employ a fresh one. The Government must see that there will be a number of preparations involved which will require time. It would be most unfair that the Court should proceed immediately with the trial without taking the trouble to find out whether the prisoner is prepared to go on or not. I think the interval I mention in my Amendment should be allowed. Ten days would be most reasonable. A prisoner may have to make fresh arrangements with regard to his witnesses, and he may want new funds, I may say, seeing the Amendment is intended to provide for several defendants, only one of whom makes the application.

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

The rules on this subject will be made by the Lord Lieutenant; and no Government would think of forcing on a trial until a defendant has had full opportunity of taking the steps necessary to defend himself. I may point out that the defendant can apply to the Court to postpone the trial.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

It is only right, I think, that those who make the rules should have a mandatory direction from this House that a certain time should be allowed between the order and the trial. We must remember that we are passing a Coercion Bill which will impose upon a person the necessity of having his witnesses and providing his solicitor and counsel, and probably taking them a long distance away from the place where he had first thought to employ them. Surely, under the circumstances, 10 days is not too much of an interval to allow a person under those circumstances. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that the defendant may appeal to the Court to postpone the trial; but that would be at the trial, and after all his preparations have been made, and his witnesses have been brought up. No one would go to the trouble of asking for delay after he had provided his witnesses and was ready to go on with the case. I think this Amendment would be a great improvement in the Bill, and I do not see what harm it could do. It would prevent great injustice in many cases. I do not suppose, even if the prescribed authority were applied to, and were to make an order for an adjournment, that adjournment would be less than 10 days; but I think we ought to put in the Bill itself some limit within which the trial, under the circumstances provided for in the Bill, cannot be taken.

MR. HOLMES

Suppose a man to be tried at the Spring Assizes, and the venue is changed within 10 days before the Assize, if this Amendment is adopted there will be no possibility of trying him before the Summer Assize, even although the accused would be anxious for a trial, and might be detained in prison for four months longer awaiting one.

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whom we would always rather deal with than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is merely a lamentable excrescence on this Bill, so to speak, has put a very good point. He says that a prisoner might be prevented from being tried at a certain Assize; but I think any hardship in that direction to the prisoner would be obviated by introducing the words "without the defendant's consent." Unless this Amendment is accepted, the result may be that a venue may be changed in such a way as to prevent the prisoner from employing sympathetic counsel, who may be engaged elsewhere, and to throw him into the arms of Orange barristers. If I were to be tried, I must say I would much rather hand my case over into the hands of a gentleman whose sympathy I thought I might claim. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that all these rules will be made by the Lord Lieutenant; but the Lord Lieutenant is the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He himself will have to make these rules. Surely he will not say that he is a better authority than 670 Members of Parliament. We suggest that the Committee should make these rules. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not happen to be in Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant may be Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimer, for his Excellency the English Viceroy may he at the races in England, whilst his Chief Secretary is at the sea side. The poor Lord Lieutenant will hardly write his own name. It is absurd to endeavour to palm off arguments of this kind upon us. [Cries of "Question!"] This is the question. It is a monstrous thing to suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in matters of this kind, is likely to have more sense than 670 Members of Parliament.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

This is an instance of the way in which the Government waste the time on this Bill. Here is an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy). It is proposed that a defendant should have a fair notice—that is to say, 10 days' notice—before the trial is brought on; and what is the reply of the Irish Attorney General? He says that the Lord Lieutenant, or he himself, would make a rule to that effect. But why are we to trust him in this matter? Why should not the rule be in the Bill? For myself, I always listen to the discussions which go on on this Bill with an open an impartial mind. I listen, and am always ready to go upon the one side or the other, whichever I think is right; but I never was more convinced that this side was right than in regard to this proposal. When hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of waste of time, they should not set such a bad example as they are doing now, but they should grant these small Amendments, instead of sitting naggling and quarrelling and splitting hairs, as if we were a parcel of lawyers.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I am not surprised that the Government refuse to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, if they accepted it, it would be contrary to the principle on which they are going with regard to the whole clause. The whole clause is for the purpose of changing the place of trials of Nationalist prisoners, who may be guilty of no particular offence except that of defending their homes, to some Orange district, and the landlords and the authorities of Dublin Castle will find no difficulty in getting an Orange jury to convict. That is the object of the clause, and, that being so. it is not to be wondered at that the Government refuse the Amendment of my hon. Friend to provide that if the place of trial be changed the defendant should not be called upon to defend himself in the new place of trial without notice. I do not think anything more reasonable could be asked of the Government than that if they insist on changing without sufficient reason a place of trial in Ireland, and do it suddenly and without notice, they should give the defendant full time, when he arrives at the new place of trial, to get his witnesses together, and his lawyers to defend him, and generally to make his arrangements of defence. If the Government were honestly inclined to treat the matter fairly they would not refuse to give 10 days, which is a very short space of time, to a defendant, in order to enable him to make his preparations in the new place of trial. But the refusal of the Government to give a man, suddenly taken from his own neighbourhood to a new one, time to get his witnesses together to get up his case, shows the end the Government have in view. It shows that the object of the Government is not to get a fair trial, but to secure, rightly or wrongly, the conviction of such Nationalists in Ireland who may be distasteful to the landlord class. I, for one, am not at all sorry that the Government are consistently acting on this policy. The refusal of the Government to give a man whose place of trial has been changed an opportunity to get his witnesses together, and prepare himself for trial, proves conclusively that the object of the Government, and of the whole of this Bill, and more particularly of this clause of the Bill, is to obtain convictions on behalf of the landlord classes against men who have not committed crimes at all, but have simply made themselves obnoxious to the authorities of Dublin Castle and their protégées the landlords, by making a stand to prevent themselves and their children from being evicted from their homes. I am sure that when it is known that the Government refuse this moderate Amendment, and will not grant a man time to get up his case when a change is made in the place of trial, all doubt will disappear from the minds of the public that the object of the Government in passing this Bill is not to put down crime at all, but to strike at their political opponents, and carry on the government of the country in the interests of the landlord classes. I am very glad indeed that the Government are going to refuse this Amendment, because it shows us that we have to expect nothing reasonable from them, and that we are to prepare ourselves to fight them on every part of this Bill to see if we cannot succeed in frustrating their nefarious and infernal designs.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I rise to Order. I want to know if the hon. Member is at liberty to speak of the nefarious and infernal designs of hon. Members?

THE CHAIRMAN

I did not hear the words.

MR. F. S. POWELL

The hon. Member's words were "nefarious and infernal designs."

MR. T. M. HEALY

What?

THE CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member himself (Mr. W. Redmond) will repeat the words he used.

MR. W. REDMOND

What I said was nefarious and infernal designs.

THE CHAIRMAN

On the part of whom?

MR. W. REDMOND

On the part of the Government.

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

May I ask, Sir, if, when words are challenged, it is not necessary that those words should be taken down?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not necessary in this case. The hon. Member (Mr. W. Redmond) cannot accuse any Member of this House or the Government of nefarious and infernal designs. Such language 'it is improper to use in the House of Commons.

MR. W. REDMOND

I applied those words not individually to any Member of the House, but to the Government collectively. However, I will withdraw the expression "infernal," and will confine myself to the expression "nefarious," and by so doing I shall make my meaning sufficiently clear.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Attention has been called to an improper expression used in debate, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland meets everything with leers or sneers or jeers, I observe him now laughing in a most improper manner. He gets a large salary for sitting on that Bench, and therefore he ought to keep his countenance, if he cannot keep his temper, Now, I want to put the matter seriously to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government refuse the prisoner 10 days before trial, but under Section 14 it is provided that— There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament such allowances to officers and other persons acting in pursuance of this Act; and such expenses incurred in reference to any Court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, and such expenses of persons charged, counsel, and witnesses, payable in pursuance of this Act, as the Lord Lieutenant, with the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, may from time to time direct. That is always referred to as the English section, but I understand that the Government intend to drop it. Now, surely it is reasonable there should be some opportunity of engaging counsel. If a man is taken from Cork to the Giant's Causeway, is it intended he should bring with him his counsel and witnesses at his own expense? In spite of the sneers and unworthy laughter of the Chief Secretary, I think this is a point worthy of consideration. A matter of this kind ought not to be met in the heartless and callous manner of the right hon. Gentleman. I respectfully submit that this is a matter of some importance to the Bar. I am raising it as a member of the Bar, though, God knows, I do not get much chance of practising at the Bar, because I am generally here. I maintain that when a prisoner has paid his solicitor and barrister in Cork, he should not, if he is taken up to Antrim, be obliged to pay another solicitor and another barrister.

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

There is no intention of dropping the 14th section.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is not the point. We are constantly met in this way by the Irish Chief Secretary. He thinks his an aristocratic manner—[Cries of "Order!"] Well, I will not say aristocratic, but I will say we are constantly met by his abrupt manner, because there is nothing aristocratic about him.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to restrain himself, and speak in a manner more becoming the Committee.

THE FIRST LORD or 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 256; Noes 131: Majority 125. [11.35 P.M.]

AYES.
Addison, J. E. W.	De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.
Ainslie, W. G.	De Worms, Baron H.
Allsopp, hon. G.	Dickson, Major A. G.
Allsopp, hon. P.	Dimsdale, Baron R.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Donkin, R. S.
	Dorington, Sir J. E.
Anstruther, H. T.	Dugdale, J. S.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Duncan, Colonel F.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Duncombe, A.
Baggallay, E.	Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
Bailey, Sir J. R.
Baird, J. G. A.	Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Egerton, hon. A. J. F.
Balfour, G. W.	Egerton, hon. A. de T
Baring, Viscount	Elliot, hon. H. F. H.
Barry, A. H. Smith-	Elliot, G. W.
Bartley, G. C. T.	Elton, C. I.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Evelyn, W. J.
Bass, H.	Ewart, W.
Bates, Sir E.	Ewing, Sir A. O.
Baumann, A. A.	Farquharson, H. R.
Beach, W. W. B.	Fellowes, W. H.
Beadel, W. J.	Fergusson, right hon.
Beaumont, H. F.	Sir J.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Field, Admiral E.
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Fielden, T.
Beresford, Lord C. W.	Finch, G. H.
De la Poer	Fisher, W. H.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
	Fitz-Wygratn, Gen.
Bigwood, J.	Sir F. W.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Folkestone, right hon.
Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.	Viscount
	Forwood, A. B.
Bond, G. H.	Fowler, Sir R. N.
Bonsor, H. C. O.	Fraser, General C. C.
Boord, T. W.	Fulton, J. F.
Borthwick, Sir A.	Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-
Bristowe, T. L.	Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
	Gedge, S.
Brookfield, A. M.	Gent-Davis, R.
Brown, A. H.	Gibson, J. G.
Burghley, Lord	Giles, A.
Caine, W. S.	Gilliat, J. S.
Caldwell, J.	Godson, A. F.
Chamberlain, R.	Goldsmid, Sir J.
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Goldsworthy, Major-
Coddington, W.	General W. T.
Coghill, D. H.	Gorst, Sir J. E.
Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.	Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.
	Grimston, Viscount
Compton, F.	Gunter, Colonel R.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Gurdon, R. T.
Corbett, A. C.	Hall, A. W.
Corry, Sir J. P.	Hall, C.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.	Halsey, T. F.
Cross, H. S.	Hambro, Col. C. J. T.
Crossman, Gen. Sir W.	Hamilton, right hon.
Currie, Sir D.	Lord G. F.
Dalrymple, C.	Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Davenport, H. T.	Hamilton, Col. C. E.
De Cobain, E. S. W.	Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

Hanbury, R. W.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Hardcastle, E.	Mayne, Admiral R. C.
Hardcastle, F.	Mills, hon. C. W.
Hartington, Marq. of	Milvain, T.
Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.	Morgan, hon. F.
	Morrison, W.
Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-	Mount, W. G.
	Mowbray, right hon. Sir J.R.
Heaton, J. H.
Heneage, right hon. E.	Mowbray, R. G. C.
Herbert, hon. S.	Mulholland, H. L.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.	Muntz, P. A.
	Murdoch, C. T.
Hill, Colonel E. S.	Newark, Viscount
Hill, A. S.	Noble, W.
Hoare, S.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
Hobhouse, H.	Norton, R.
Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.	Paget, Sir R. H.
	Parker, hon. F.
Holmes, rt. hon. H.	Pearce, W.
Hornby, W. H.	Pease, H. F.
Houldsworth, W. H.	Pelly, Sir L.
Howorth, W. H. R.	Plunket, right hon. D.
Hozier, T. H. C.
Hubbard, E.	Pomfret, W. P.
Hughes, Colonel E.	Powell, F. S.
Hunt, F. S.	Price, Captain G. E.
Hunter, Sir W. G.	Quilter, W. C.
Isaacson, F. W.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Jackson, W. L.	Rankin, J.
Jarvis, A. W.	Rasch, Major F. C.
Jennings, L. J.	Reed, H. B.
Kelly, J. R.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Kenrick W.	Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.
Kenyon, hon. G. T.	Robertson, W. T.
Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.	Robinson, B.
	Ross, A. H.
Kerans, F. H.	Round, J.
Kimber, H.	Royden, T. B.
King, H. S.	Russell, Sir G.
King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.	Russell, T. W.
	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.
Knightley, Sir R.
Knowles, L.	Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Kynoch, G.
Lafone, A.	Sellar, A. C.
Lambert, C.	Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.
Lawrance, J. C.
Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.	Seton-Karr, H.
Lawrence, W. F.	Sidebottom, T. H.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Sinclair, W. P.
Lees, E.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Legh, T. W.	Smith, A.
Lewis, Sir C. E.	Spencer, J. E.
Lewisham, right hon. Viscount	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
	Stanley, E. J.
Long, W. H.	Stewart, M. J.
Low, M.	Sutherland, T.
Lowther, hon. W.	Sykes, C.
Lowther, J. W.	Talbot, J. G.
Macartney, W. G. E.	Tapling, T. K.
Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.	Taylor, F.
	Temple, Sir R.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Maclean, J. M.	Verdin, R.
Maclure, J. W.	Vernon, hon. G. R.
Malcolm, Col. J. W.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Mallock, R.	Watson, J.
March, Earl of Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.	Webster, Sir R. E.
	Webster, R. G.
Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-	Weymouth, Viscount
	White, J. B.
Matthews, rt. hn. H.	Whitley, E.

Whitmore, C. A.	Wroughton, P.
Williams, T. Powell-	Young, C. E. B.
Wilson, Sir S.
Wodehouse, E. R.	TELLERS.
Wood, N.	Douglas, A. Akers- Walrond, Col. W. H.
Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Lewis, T. P.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Macdonald, W. A.
	M'Arthur, A.
Acland, A. H. D.	M'Arthur, W. A.
Allison, R. A.	M'Cartan, M.
Asquith, H. H.	M'Donald, P.
Atherley-Jones, L.	M'Donald, Dr. R.
Barran, J.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Blake, T.	M'Laren, W. S. B.
Blane, A.	Maitland, W. F.
Bolton, J. C.	Mappin, Sir F. T.
Bradlaugh, C.	Marum, E. M.
Broadhurst, H.	Mason, S.
Brown, A. L.	Molloy, B. C.
Burt, T.	Morgan, O. V.
Cameron, J. M.	Morley, A.
Campbell, Sir G.	Mundella, right hon. A. J.
Campbell, H.
Carew, J. L.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Chance, P. A.	Nolan, J.
Channing, F. A.	O'Brien, J. F. X.
Clancy, J. J.	O'Brien, P.
Clark, Dr. G. B.	O'Brien, P. J.
Coleridge, hon. B.	O'Connor, A.
Commins, A.	O'Connor, J. (Kerry)
Connolly, L.	O'Connor, J. (Tipperary.)
Conway, M.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	O'Connor, T. P.
Cossham, H.	O'Doherty, J. E.
Cremer, W. R.	O'Hanlon, T.
Crossley, E.	O'Kelly, J.
Deasy, J.	Peacock, R.
Dillon, J.	Pease, A. E.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Pickard, B.
Dodds, J.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Ellis, J. E.	Picton, J. A.
Ellis, T. E.	Pinkerton, J.
Esslemont, P.	Powell, W. R. H.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Power, P. J.
Fenwick, C.	Power, R.
Finucane, J.	Price, T. P.
Foley, P. J.	Priestley, B.
Foster, Sir W. B.	Provand, A. D.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Pyne, J. D.
Gill, T. P.	Quinn, T.
Gladstone, H. J.	Redmond, W. H. K.
Grey, Sir E.	Roberts, J.
Gully, W. C.	Roberts, J. B.
Haldane, R. B.	Roe, T.
Harrington, E.	Rowlands, J.
Hayden, L. P.	Rowlands, W. B.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Rowntree, J.
Healy, M.	Sexton, T.
Healy, T. M.	Shaw, T.
Hooper, J.	Sheehan, J. D.
Hunter, W. A.	Smith, S.
Jacoby, J. A.	Stack, J.
Joicey, J.	Stanhope, hon. P. J.
Kennedy, E. J.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Kenny, C. S.	Stevenson, F. S.
Lalor, R.	Sullivan, D.
Lawson, Sir W.	Summers, W.
Lawson, H. L. W.	Swinburne, Sir J.
Leake, R.	Tuite, J.
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.	Wallace, R.

Warmington, C. M.	TELLERS.
Wayman, T.	Biggar, J. G.
Williams, A. J.	Sheil, E.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Question put. That the words, 'Provided, that where an order has been made under this section, and the place of trial is changed accordingly, the trial shall not be held for at least ten days after such order shall have been served on each defendant,' be there inserted.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 258: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 208.) [11.45 P.M.]

MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Mayo, S.)

I beg to say, Sir, that I did not hear the Question put, and voted, accidentally, in the wrong Lobby.

THE CHAIRMAN

The mistake cannot be rectified now, as the numbers have been announced at the Table by the Tellers.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I beg to move that you do report Progress, Sir, and ask leave to sit again. I do this in order that we may hear from the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to take to-night the proposed Mail Contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company.

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

I wish to say that, unless any hon. Member objects to the proposal, I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House generally that the discussion of the proposed India-China Mail Contracts be postponed until Monday week.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to-night?

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no Question before the Committee. The Question has not been put.

DR. CLARK

I will withdraw the Motion.

Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to-night, as it is the intention of some of my hon. Friends to discuss the tobacco question as affecting Ireland, and also the question of the allocation of £50,000 for arterial drainage, which we have reason to look upon as a gross job?

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

May I ask whether the Government have come to any decision as to the point raised at the commencement of the Sitting—namely, as to whether they intend to make progress tonight with the Coal Mines Regulation Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I would propose that we make progress with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to-night if we reach it at anything like a reasonable hour. The question the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy) refers to—namely, the allocation of £50,000 to arterial drainage in Ireland—has nothing to do with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY

May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman considers a "reasonable time"? According to their proposed new Rules, the Government seem to think half-past 12 a reasonable hour for relinquishing Business for the night. I do not know whether reasonableness is to change according to the time of the year.

MR. W. H. SMITH

There does not seem to me any reason why the Committee should not arrive at a decision on the sub-section immediately. If it does, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will then make a statement with reference to Sub-section 2. After that we shall immediately report Progress, and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill may then be taken.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

That seems a very reasonable course. If we decide on the sub-section before the Committee, the Government will state what course they intend to take with Sub-section 2.

MR. T. M. HEALY

It is not a reasonable thing to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to-night. It would be an unfortunate thing to take it at this late hour of the night (12.10) in view of the important considerations to be raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the question of the allocation of this £50,000 will not arise under that Bill. I do not know what decision the Chair will give on the point, but the question certainly seems to me relevant seeing that it is proposed to allocate this money out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman had no reference to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, but was with regard to a subject which interests a large number of people inside and outside this House—namely, the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. The intentions of the Government respecting this measure are not known, and a large number of hon. Members have remained here in a state of uncertainty as to the course that is to be taken upon it tonight. I want some kind of definite announcement as to when the Bill is likely to be brought forward.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Earlier in the evening I stated that the Coal Mines Regulation Bill was to be taken, if it was agreeable to hon. Gentlemen representing constituencies interested in coal mines, between half-past 11 and 12 o'clock. Early in the evening—shortly after that announcement was made—I received a communication from those Gentlemen to the effect that it would not be agreeable to them that the Bill should be taken at that hour. I yielded to the representation then made, and announced, through the customary channels, that the Bill would not be taken this evening. It is impossible for me to say when the Bill will be taken. I am anxious to make an arrangement for it to come on, however, and it will be taken on the first convenient opportunity.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I would appeal to the Government to fix a time that will afford an opportunity for the discussion of this Bill, seeing that it involves the interests of 500,000 of the population of this country—and not only their interests, but their lives. It will be exceedingly inconvenient to have it put down at times when there is no opportunity of reaching it and having it discussed.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am not responsible for the inconvenience that is spoken of. The hon. Member will bear me out that I have made repeated statements in this House and to him, on the subject, and I have his letter stating that it would not be agreeable to himself and his Colleagues that this Bill should be taken after half-past 11 o'clock. I am not now able to state the flay on which it will be possible to take it at an earlier hour.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

If hon. Members only knew the thinness of the thread by which the lives of hundreds of thousands of these men——

THE CHAIRMAN

This discussion, however interesting, is not relevant to the Motion to report Progress.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I would ask the Government whether they think it more important to destroy the liberties of the subjects of the Queen—[Interruption.]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Does the hon. Member for Caithness wish to withdraw the Motion?

DR. CLARK

Yes, Sir.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move in page 3, line 37, after "had" to insert— Provided that the Court may, in any proper case, award any defendant his costs of any proceedings under this section. I trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. They have already accepted its principle, and have provided that when a change of venue takes place the Crown shall pay the cost of that change. They have limited the proposal, as I understand it, to the payment of the expenses of the defendant's witnesses and the expenses incurred if there is a subsequent trial.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 37, after "had," to insert the words, "Provided that the Court may in any proper case award any defendant his costs of any proceedings under this section."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

I will endeavour to make the matter clear on Report, so as to provide that if a defendant succeeds in his application he will be entitled to costs.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible to accept the Amendment in its present form, and to give the Court power to allow the defendant his costs, even if the decision is against him, if the Court thought he had a reasonable case.

MR. HOLMES

I have said that I propose to deal with the matter on Report. I will endeavour to amend the Bill in this respect to some extent, but I cannot undertake to go so far as the hon. Member suggests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I now move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) to insert after "had" in line 37— 'Provided, that an order made under this section may be appealed from to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, which shall have jurisdiction to hear such appeal, and to confirm, vary, or re-verso such order as may seem just. When we remember the case of Father Keller we see how desirable it is to have an appeal in these matters. The public generally have confidence in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and I trust the Government will not allow men to be deprived of their liberty—to have their lives and liberties imperilled—under this section without giving them an appeal in the matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 37, after "had," to insert the words—'' Provided, that an order made under this section may be appealed from to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, which shall have jurisdiction to hear such appeal, and to confirm, vary, or reverse such order as may seem just.—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

The Government cannot accept this Amendment. It would be absurd to allow an appeal on a mere exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court. No appeal was given in criminal cases in the Judicature Act of 1873, though a similar provision was inserted in the Irish Judicature Act; but if this Amendment were accepted there is little doubt that advantage would be taken of it in every case, if only to procure delay.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that the discretion of partizan Judges should not be overruled by giving an appeal to independent men? We all know that the Judges of the Court——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman has been frequently told that he must not attack the Judges as he is now doing. There is a Constitu- tional method of calling the action of these officials in question.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Some of the Judges to whom I was referring are dead and gone, and my attack would not do them much harm. One of them is in the House of Lords, and no attack could reach him. The practice of the Government has been for the Government to put political partizans into the Court of Queen's Beach, so as to form a Court on which they can rely. We propose that there should be an appeal from this Court to one that has been reasonably constituted—namely, the Court of Appeal in Ireland. The Government seem to think that the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal are equally deserving of being incensed by this House; but our preference for the Court of Appeal ought not to be offensive to the Queen's Bench Division, seeing that the gentlemen in the Court of Appeal have much higher salaries, and from their position are entitled to much more respect. I think it most unreasonable for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to what was done in the Judicature Act. That Act was passed before the franchise had been extended, and when you had representing Ireland in this House a corrupt Party who looked after their own interests more than anybody else's and were always on the watch for jobs. That Party did not object to the constitution of this Court, but the Party now representing Ireland do object to it. If we had a Judicature Act like that referred to to pass again we should fight it tooth and nail. I say in 1873 the Irish people were not represented as they are now. That period was the dark ages as compared with the present time, so far as the representation of Ireland in this House is concerned.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

In a certain well known case—that of Canon Keller, of Youghal—the defendant would have been kept in prison to this moment if it had not been for an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Dublin. Canon Keller's imprisonment was illegal; but the Court of Queen's Bench held it to be perfectly legal. The Court of Appeal decided against the Court of Queen's Bench by a majority of 3 to 1. That being an example—a recent example—of the untrustworthiness of the partizan Court, I think it hardly decent for the Government to resist us in this matter. We are entitled, under the circumstances, to say that they resist our attempt to secure this appeal because they know they are secure under present arrangements, and that the Court of Queen's Bench will not oppose the wish of the Executive.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I would ask English legal Gentlemen to bear in mind what it is the Government have done in this matter. If I bring an action for £20 in one of the Superior Courts, and lay the venue in any part of Ireland, any party to that action can apply to have the venue changed; but the Government have now decided that in a case where a man is tried for his life, and the Government lay the venue in a particular place, if the prisoner objects to that venue, and appeals to the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Court of Queen's Bench refuses to hear him, he is not to have an appeal from their decision in a matter that may affect his life, and must affect his liberty. I cannot conceive anything more monstrous than that. In the smallest and most trumpery action you can have an appeal, and it is most monstrous for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us that you cannot have an appeal against the "discretion" of the Court. I say it is not a matter of discretion. It is a question of fact in itself. The Court has to decide whether it is or is not a fact that the venue to which the trial is to be changed is of such a character that you can get a more fair and impartial trial there than in the place where the venue would be ordinarily laid. That is an allegation of fact to be decided, and it is perfectly idle and monstrous to say that this is merely a matter of discretion. There are appeals every day on this question of venue in civil cases, and no one has ever pretended that in civil actions it is a question for the discretion of the Court. The Court is trying an ordinary motion, on which it is to come to a conclusion on the evidence placed before it—not oral evidence, but evidence contained in affidavits. I did think that this was a point on which we might expect a favourable hearing. I do not desire to make any attack on the Court of Queen's Bench; but Members on all sides must be aware of this fact—that the Court of Queen's Bench is so constituted that the Irish people have not—rightly or wrongly—confidence in it. That has been declared in this House over and over again. Their partiality and their decisions have been frequently attacked; and as to cases in which an appeal has been taken from their decisions on political matters, those decisions have been over and over again reversed. The Court consists of four political Judges, and it is simply atrocious to say that on a matter in which the life of a prisoner may be concerned there should be no power of appeal. After such a decision as that we may expect anything of the Government.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

The Attorney General for Ireland opposes this Amendment, because he says it is a matter for the discretion of the Court, and it is not usual on such questions that there should be a power of appeal. Well, I should like to ask the House to look at the process by which this change of venue is brought about. It is brought, in the first instance, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself, and it is a matter for his discretion, as an Officer of the Crown, and the Member of a political Executive, to say, without any evidence, and on his simple certificate, that the venue ought to be changed. But then, if the defendant wishes to question this decision, he may bring evidence before the Court, so that the question for the Court to decide is a question of fact. Now, by an insidious provision of this Bill—all through it—the Court is called the High Court of Justice in Ireland. Now, we look to the Judicature (Ireland) Act, and we find that the High Court for criminal matters does not consist of one or all of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Ireland; it consists, and can consist, only of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. Therefore, the Queen's Bench Division is the tribunal before which alone these cases can be decided. If it is true that the Queen's Bench is a political Court—I say nothing whatever about that—what is more reasonable—having regard to the case of the Rev. Father Keller, who, if there had been no appeal from the Judge in Bankruptcy, would have been in prison at this moment for contempt of Court—than that there should be the right of appeal on this question of venue to the Court of Appeal? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England well knows that the Criminal Code Bill—the preamble of which said that it was expedient that there should be equal justice for England and Ireland—laid it down as an essential principle of criminal jurisprudence that there should be a right of appeal. That shows the tendency of criminal legislation in this matter, and will you deny to carry out that principle now that you are passing an amendment of the Irish Criminal Law which is intended to be perpetual? Without this Amendment the safeguards in this clause are quite illusory. The Court has no discretion whatever. They are presented to the gaze of the English people as acting judicially, while really they are mere puppets of the political agents of Dublin Castle.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 236: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 209.) [12.40 A.M.]

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving the omission of the 2nd subsection of this clause. There is an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. H. S. King); but it is, probably, for the convenience of the Committee that I should move it myself, and take this opportunity of stating to the House the views of the Government on the subject. Sir, the reasons which induced the Government originally to introduce this sub-section are not light ones. I do not propose to enumerate them at length now. They are stated briefly in the preamble of this clause. They may be summarized by saying that if we left the measure which we proposed to Parliament, without some conditions of this sort, too great a strain would be put on the jury system of Ireland. I shall not stop now to defend that proposition, because, as I will explain to the Committee in a few moments, there will be another opportunity on which I shall be able to lay the views of the Government at greater length before the Committee, and in a manner which, I am sure, will convince all impartial persons that a strong case exists for introducing some machinery of this or an analogous kind. But, Sir, whilst we adhere to these reasons, whilst we still think those reasons are sound, and whilst we are still of opinion that any measure for improving the legal machinery of Ireland would be incomplete without something of the kind, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that a large body of opinion—entertained by Gentlemen who agree entirely with the policy of Her Majesty's Government—entertained not only by Gentlemen on this side of the House, but also by some on the other side of the House—exists to a degree which it is impossible for us to ignore. I observe, for instance, that there are Amendments on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit), the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley), the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of North Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley), and the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Howorth), similar to that which I am now moving; whilst other Amendments from the other side of the House, and to a similar import, are on the Paper. Of course, we always were aware that objections—very strong objections—might reasonably be urged against the propositions we put before the House. We were aware, for instance, that some very high authorities thought that a very grave objection to the change of venue to England might be found in the fact that the Criminal Law of Ireland is embodied in a different series of Statutes to that of England. But besides that objection—which some might call technical—there is a large body of objections—which I will not call sentimental, because that implies blame, but which, at all events, are founded chiefly upon sentiment—with respect to which I quite admit that objections so founded may, under certain circumstances, deserve and command very great respect. We thought that, great as was the weight to be attached to these objections, an expedient that did preserve the reality of the jury system, and which, even in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, preserved that system better than the other parts of our Bill—for they have, over and over again, declared that they would rather be tried by an Old Bailey jury than by a special jury empannelled from County Dublin—was worthy the consideration of the House. But, Sir, so long as the end we desire to attain is reached we do not desire—[An hon. MEMBER from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway: The end justifies the means.]—we do not desire to show ourselves obstinate as to the means by which it is to be reached. Therefore, Sir, the Government are of opinion that, on the whole, it would be a wise and a prudent course for them to abandon the change of venue to England, and to substitute for it a Commission of Judges, which has, at all events, the advantage of having to some extent and in a certain manner in its favour the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in 1882. I do not propose to argue that question now. What I have to propose to the House is the method by which the Government intend to carry out that which is their intention on this point. There are three possible courses open to us. We might, of course, introduce Amendments embodying our proposals to this part of the Bill as an Amendment to this clause; but the objection to that would be, if on no other ground, that a proposal of this sort ought not to be sprung upon the Committee at such a short notice. There are other objections, so, without a word of argument, I may dismiss that part of the question. The second course would be to put at the end of the Bill the clauses which would be found necessary to carry our proposal into effect. In 1882 the clauses by which the Special Commission of Judges were created took up, I think, about five or six pages of that Bill; and if we were to embody them in this measure we should increase its bulk by about one-half. Coming, therefore, at the end of this Bill, their introduction would, undoubtedly, greatly prolong our debates; and as this proposal was not mentioned to the House on the second reading—though the grounds for it were—and as this is the first time the Government have announced their intention of carrying this plan into effect, and as, moreover, we hope the remaining clauses of the Bill will not take any very long time to dispose of, we are of opinion, for all these reasons, that great and weighty objections may be urged against our introducing at the end of the Bill the necessary machinery to carry out our scheme. We therefore propose, Sir, simply to drop the 2nd sub-section and all the consequential portions of the Bill which may follow; to carry the Bill without this portion, and, without any further delay, to introduce a second Bill embodying this proposal for a Commission to which I have referred.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out sub-section (2).—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, That the words—' (2.) When the crime committed as aforesaid within a proclaimed district with which the defendant is charged is—

1. (a.) Murder or manslaughter;
2. (b.) Attempt to murder;
3. (c.) Aggravated crime of violence against the person;
4. (d.) Arson by statute or common law;
5. (e.) Breaking into, firing at or,' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I cannot congratulate the Government upon the method they have devised for saving the time of Parliament. Here is a proposal introduced by the Government—introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with great pomp as a scheme which was absolutely necessary for the pacification of Ireland, a scheme such, as he told us just now, necessitated the unusual course of a special preamble to this particular clause—it was in order to cover this particular proposition he said this preamble was introduced, this preamble that occupied the attention of the Committee for the greater part of yesterday—and now, for the first time after the Bill has been before the House for many weeks, they have discovered that this proposal is so preposterous, so ridiculous, that they cannot face the condemnation of it which stands recorded on this Paper from every quarter of the House, including their own supporters who sit there and their own supporters who sit here. Why, everybody knew how preposterous it was from the very moment the Bill was first seen, I remember very well that on the second reading of the Bill I declined altogether to discuss it as a serious proposal. I said it was so ridiculous, so monstrous, on the face of it, that the Government would not dare to carry it, and even if they carried it they would not dare to act upon it, and that was apparent to every man of common sense in the country who does not happen to sit on that Bench. And here, on the 9th of June, the announcement is made that it would be wise and prudent, in face of this universal condemnation of their proposal, to drop it. They arrive at this after mature deliberation on a scheme they have claimed as entirely their own. But it is a proposal for which they cannot claim the originality. There is a precedent for it in one of the most disgraceful periods of our history; it is stolen from the policy of the Government of Lord North—which lost us the American Colonies. It was a disgraceful, discreditable proposal, which you will find condemned by the great oratory of Burke in that immortal speech on the conciliation of America—a proposal to bring Colonials from America to try them in London. Having the whole scope of English history to choose from, this is the example Her Majesty's Government deliberately introduced into their Bill. But I need not dwell on this capital article of their Bill. In consequence of the universal disapprobation it has met with, what are they going to do? To substitute another proposal, and a proposal in the Act of 1882, which they now find was a more sensible proposal than their own.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I did not say so.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Then I have failed to understand the right hon. Gentleman. He referred specially to the Act of 1882. It would seem that the right hon. Gentleman has so little acquainted himself with his own policy that he has hardly explained his new plan to the Committee to his own satisfaction. If it is not to be a Commission of Judges, as in the Act of 1882, what is it to be? He certainly has failed to explain it to the Committee. Well, however it be, what is the proposal that is to save the time of Parliament? You have had your first reading debate, your second reading debate, and your debate on the stage of going into Committee on this Bill, and what you propose to do now is not to introduce an alternative proposal into this measure, but to have a new first reading, and a second reading, and a going into Committee debate, upon a supplementary Coercion Bill. Such a proposal is wantonly, deliberately made to waste the time of Parliament. You "live and move and have your being" so entirely on coercion that it seems you think that if you part with this measure you would be unfortunately compelled to introduce some other measures of another kind, and this would be so alien to your character, so inconsistent with your political position, that you must always keep a Coercion Bill before the House, for this is the fundamental basis—the universal cement—which keeps together all sections of the Unionist Party. Therefore, when, on the 17th June or some other day, you have got rid of Coercion Bill No. 1, you will have ready a fresh Coercion Bill No. 2, which will last a month or two longer. Then you will find out that some proposal in Coercion Bill No. 2 is so ridiculous that you cannot maintain it, and then you will have Coercion Bill No. 3. And so this Government of Coercion will have its properly arranged set of courses—a first course, a second course, and a third course. This is the pabulum on which alone you live and act, on which alone you can go on. Is there a man in the country who does not see through this scheme? You know that the moment the Coercion discussion ceases you will get into inextricable difficulties. You have told us of your remedial measures. Well, in "another place," where you have it all your own way, where you have no obstruction but what comes from your own Party, you cannot get along with your remedial measures there. If that be so, if your remedial measures involve you in such enormous difficulties, it is a case of keeping coercion going as long as you can. Under these circumstances, it seems the proposal you have announced to-night to terminate Coercion Bill No. 1 is quite immaterial, for when you terminate that, then at once you begin Coercion Bill No. 2. I treat the proposal as a distinct sham to provide a cry that you have done this to get on with Business, when you are obliged, after all, to have recourse to such a clumsy device as this to prevent any Business at all being done.

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

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated——

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

rose in his place, and said: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney, and I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put," and agreed to.

Question, That the words (2.) When the crime committed as aforesaid within a proclaimed district with which the defendant is charged is—

1. (a.) Murder or manslaughter;
2. (b.) Attempt to murder;
3. (c.) Aggravated crime of violence against the person;
4. (d.) Arson by statute or common law;
5. (e.) Breaking into, firing at or,' stand part of the Clause,"

—put, and negatived.

Words omitted.

THE CHAIRMAN

There now remains one more Amendment to the clause (81 A) capable of being put.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

The first part of my Amendment being out of Order, I move only the second part. As it is precisely the same Proviso as was agreed to by the Government earlier in the discussions on the Bill I think I need not detain the Committee, and presume that it will be accepted.

Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the Clause, the words—" There shall be published quarterly in the Dublin Gazette a return showing: The number of orders made during the preceding quarter for change of the place of trial, the date of each such order, the places from and to which the change has been made by such order, with the names of the defendant or defendants, and the crime charged against him or them."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

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

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

The Government cannot accept this Amendment. The reasons given for publishing a Return of the names of persons who might be committed under the preliminary inquiry do not apply to the proceedings under Clause 4. These proceedings are of a public official character; there will be an indictment and the fiat of the Attorney General; and if there be any appeal to the Court it will be publicly made. But, first of all, a trial must take place publicly; and it will be perfectly well known in the usual way where and when the offence was committed, the evidence will be published in newspapers, and there will be no necessity for this Return to insure publicity, which possibly is necessary in regard to the 1st clause of the Bill, and to which, in that case, the Government assented.

MR. J. E. ELLIS

With great respect for the authority of the Attorney General I think there is a necessity, and the object in either case is the same. It is desirable that, from time to time, attention should be drawn to the operation of the Act; and I cannot for a moment see any good reason why the Government should wish to withhold from the House of Commons this information in this convenient form. I must press my Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I cannot agree that the reasons given by the hon. and learned Attorney General are sufficient for the rejection of this proposal. He says he will not give this Return, because it would be a record of things done publicly; but there are hundreds of things done publicly in the full light of day that yet are recorded in Returns granted every day by this House. We have Returns of evictions, for instance. These are not exactly judicial acts, but they follow on judicial acts. I need not attempt to go over a list of such things; but it will occur to any hon. Member that many things, after having been matters of public knowledge, are given in the form of tabulated Returns. Let me point out this—that when we come here and ask for a Return of things and transactions that are not matters of public knowledge the Government say they have no means of giving the Return; but when we ask for a Return of things done publicly we meet with a refusal, because all these things may be found reported in the newspapers.

DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

I do not see on what ground the Government can reasonably refuse this Return; they have their officers ready to compile the information we ask for. We have no such ready means, and I do not see why they should refuse this, unless they fear the Return will disclose an arbitrary exercise of the power vested in the Government. The only way of judging whether this power has been exercised in an arbitrary and unjust manner is by having the number of these alterations of venue brought together and made public. It has been very well said that a large number of individuals being assembled and drilled make an army, while undrilled they would be only a mob. When we have these separate instances of change of venue noted, when we have these facts marshalled side by side, then we shall judge whether these changes of trial have been simply for the purpose of obtaining convictions—whether the change has been made in the interests of justice, or to further the interests and gain the objects of the authorities in Dublin Castle. No doubt, we can find out what we desire to know from other sources; but when the information in a connected form is refused by the Government, we can only suppose that it is the intention to make these changes in their own interest, in the interest of arbitrary power, not of justice, and that they wish to conceal their movements and the springs of their action, as such would be displayed if we had a connected view of their administration of this Bill. They refuse us this information, and add one more to the numberless proofs that they ask for arbitrary power with an intention of using it in a tyrannical, unconstitutional manner.

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

The Government are following the course we might have expected from experience they would follow. They have been lashed with refusing all concessions on the ground that to do so would be to justify opposition. Surely it has always been held only reasonable to give such information as we ask for. I do not believe that even in the most despotic times it would have been refused in France. Why should not the Government let the people know how many persons have been affected by this change of venue? It is most unfair for Her Majesty's Government to refuse a proposal merely for information that does not affect the principle of the Bill, which only will show in how many instances this power has been put in force. This Amendment, remember, has not been moved by an Irishman; we have not asked for it, for we know enough about you and your doings—we read the Irish papers. But we know there are many hon. Members who, like the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), never read Irish papers; possibly many read nothing at all. Well, this is a demand for information; and surely, if you are going to act honestly and, in accordance with the statements of the hon. and learned Attorney General, will not make these changes of venue in an unfair and unjust manner, you should not be ashamed to let us know how many changes of venue you order. What is the secret of this refusal? Is it that the Return will enable us to detect how many two guinea fees uselessly expended you have had from the taxpayers' pockets? If we knew that there had been 100 changes of venue, we should know that 200 guineas have uselessly gone in motions for cause. Two guineas! Why, I suppose no Crown lawyer would deign to move for that sum; it is only poor wretches outside the ring who receive such. I never held a Crown brief, and I never shall; it is only "duffers" get Crown briefs, men who cannot earn two guineas by doing anything else. Is it because the Return would enable us to test exactly the high-water mark of Liberal Unionist and Tory Bar practice that you refuse it? This is the real secret; it is on this ground that the Amendment is resisted. It is the two guineas that stick in the throat of hon. Gentlemen. We are told we can read the information in the newspapers. Yes; we can read it in units, but not as a whole. We could not see at once of how much the taxpayer is robbed by gentlemen who inveigh against inflated Estimates, and get up a Committee to cut down the expenditure upon the Army and Navy, those Services of which England in the past has been proud, but to which, in a penny-wise and pound-foolish principle, you now grudge money and supply with tin bayonets.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 227: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 210.) [1.15 A.M.]

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

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Mr. Courtney, it would be absurd to expect that this clause should be allowed to be added to the Bill without some debate. We have passed Clause 3, and when Clause 4 is added to the Bill we shall have machinery authorized of such a character that it will be utterly impossible for any man in Ireland to get a fair trial. Now, Sir, we have spent two days, or the greater part of two Sittings, debating this clause, and, as far as I can remember, not one single verbal alteration has been granted to us. [Cheers.] Well, these cheers are a very good specimen of the spirit of the Party opposite. That is evidently what they consider to be the proper way to debate measures in this House. If that be the case, why do you have any debate at all, and what is the necessity for having any House at all? You might just as well get the Government draftsman to draft the Bill and provide that whatever the Government inserts in that Bill shall be law, without any discussion at all—for that is what it comes to. This measure is stated by the Government, in the precious preamble over which they wasted three or four hours of the time of the House yesterday, to be necessary in order to get a fair and impartial trial, and these two clauses are of such a character—and I will do the draftsman the justice to say that he has fully succeeded in carrying out the intentions of his paymasters—that when they are carried into law it will be utterly impossible for any man in Ireland who differs from the Government in politics to got a fair trial. There is not a single Member sitting on the Benches opposite who does not know this to be the absolute truth. In the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the right hon. Gentleman used the following remarkable words. He said that as long as the Government attained their object they were not disposed to be bigoted as regarded means. The right hon. Gentleman accurately described the condition of mind of the Government. As long as they obtain convictions of their political opponents in Ireland, whether the persons convicted be guilty or innocent of the charge brought against them, they do not care whether the convictions are obtained by means of a jury of packed men in Dublin, or a Commission of three Irish Judges, or an Old Bailey jury. It is all the same to the Government. They are not disposed to be bigoted as to the means by which they attain their object. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary alluded to the large amount of sentiment brought into play in this matter, and to the objections which, he said, existed among a large body of politicians to the machinery of this Bill. Allow me to say that, monstrous and abominable as that machinery unquestionably is, and revolting as it has proved to the sense of Englishmen, the reason why it is revolting is a very simple one. That reason is, that it brings home to Englishmen—that it brings under their own ken—what you are doing in Ireland. And the Government have failed in the attempt, and do not dare to do in view of independent English opinion what has been done for 80 years in Ireland. And why? Because what they do in England is recorded in all your newspapers, and what they do in Ireland is done in the dark. Why, Sir, if the things proposed to be done under this Bill were to be done in England, even if only against Irishmen, or if they were to be done in any part of Great Britain, under the eye of the English Press and of English public opinion, this Bill could not live for a fortnight. The fate of the 2nd sub-section of this clause ought to be a lesson to any intelligent man who wishes to be fair-minded and to treat the Irish people in such a way that he may venture to hope for any union between Ireland and this country or for any cessation of hatred. There never was a better sample of the hypocrisy common among some classes than the outcry which has been raised about this machinery of the Bill. You talk of the injustice of bringing a prisoner to England. I have already stated that a prisoner would get a fairer trial before an English jury than under the machinery which you have provided. I repeat that statement; and I say emphatically that rather than be tried before such tribunals as you are, unhappily, going to set up in Ireland I would prefer to take my chance before any jury selected in the ordinary way in Great Britain. But do I approve of the machinery of the 2nd sub-section, which is about to be struck out? Nothing of the sort. It is an infamous machinery——

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that the 2nd subsection has been struck out of the Bill. It is, therefore, irregular to continue the debate upon it.

MR. DILLON

I will submit to your ruling at once, Sir, if I am out of Order. I did not intend to discuss the 2nd subsection. I was simply pointing out that it was worse than too bad to be submitted to the public of England.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member, inadvertently no doubt, spoke of the 2nd sub-section as about to be struck out.

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

I submit for your consideration, Sir, that the Question before the Committee is that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and that one part of the amendment of the clause consists of the striking out of the sub-section.

MR. DILLON

I shall not, Sir, say anything inconsistent with your ruling. I will simply refer to the 2nd subsection as an illustration, and will drop all reference to it in detail. My point was this—that the proposal to try Irish cases in England was dropped out of this clause on the ground that it was too monstrous to be tolerated by public opinion in England, even amongst the Conservative and the Liberal Unionist Parties. I consider that Clauses 3 and 4 constitute a tribunal in Ireland which will leave the prisoner a great deal less chance than he would have had under the sub-section which, in deference to public opinion, has just been struck out. Whilst I in no way approve of the principle of that sub-section, I state distinctly that, in my opinion, it is another glaring instance of the hypocrisy which is frequently manifested in English public opinion, when dealing with affairs outside this country, that they will not tolerate a thing which is publicly brought forward, although they will tolerate things ten times more infamous when the cloak of silence is drawn over them. We know that the most infamous things are allowed to be done in the dark, and that not a voice is raised to condemn them, until, perhaps, some Press-man stirs up the cesspool. The Committee strikes out of a measure like this the proposal that Irish cases shall be tried in England, on the ground that it is too strong for the English stomach, and yet it leaves in the Bill provisions which are infinitely more unjust and cruel to the prisoner in Ireland—provisions which leave the prisoner no chance, and which forms the most monstrous and infamous parody of justice over attempted to be set up in any country. Talk of justice as administered by despots in Eastern countries! I believe that there would be more chance of justice before an Eastern potentate than there is under these clauses. The system in the past has been to bring prisoners before jurors, every single individual of whom has been carefully selected, because his position has been carefully ascertained beforehand by detectives, and because he is a sworn enemy of ours. No Member of the Irish Government could attempt to deny that they have done such things in the past, and they think that they will deceive the public of England into believing that they are doing something humane—that they are acting upon principles of justice and humanity—when they leave out the 2nd sub-section, and content themselves with other machinery, the effect of which will be to place Irish Nationalists on their trial before men every one of whom has condemned them before entering the jury-box. That is the system which they propose to set up in Ireland for ever. Now, I want, in all seriousness, to put this question to every hon. Member of this House. Does any Englishman of this House expect that this law will command the sympathy of the Irish people? All I can say is, that if any Englishman expects it he must be either intensely stupid or completely ignorant of the history of our people. Every English statesman who has addressed his mind and intellect to the consideration of the Irish Question in years gone by has declared his conviction that the essence of the difficulty in Ireland is the fact that the law is distrusted, disliked, and looked upon as hostile by the masses of the population. Statesman after statesman, from the days of Fox and Burke, and the days of the Old Whigs, to the days of Peel and Russell, and down to the day of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, has declared his conviction that, until you conciliate the masses of the people and give them confidence in the administration of the law, you cannot hope for peace in Ireland. And now, in 1887, the best way English Ministers can devise for conciliating the people and imparting to them confidence in the administration of the law—the best way they can devise, after 87 years' experience, is to adopt a machinery which they tell us is to be perpetual, and which provides that the man who belongs to the poor, and the man who holds the same political convictions as, at the lowest estimate, four-fifths of the people of Ireland, can never stand his trial for a political offence, but he must see in the jury-box 12 men alien to him in political convictions and in religion—[Cries of "No!"] Well, I hear a faint cry of "No!" I will make a present to Gentlemen opposite of that expression. I care not whether they are alien in religion or not, because some of the best friends of Ireland are Protestants. I will merely say alien to him in class and political conviction, and influenced by the most potent of all human convictions—namely, the conviction of a class that its pockets will be affected. You tell the Irish people that they are for ever to live under such a system as will condemn them to an unending succession of the turmoil, disorder, and conflict with the law which has marked the past history of your administration of that country. I would ask the Unionists in this House, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, if they hope that such a system as that is going to maintain the Union, and, if they do, whether they are not beginning to believe that the object on which they are setting their hearts is not worth the cost?

DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

When I put down the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name, to omit this clause, I believed that if there was one saving portion of the section it was the provision which has now been struck out. I have had some experience of English law as administered in England, and I know something of the English law as administered in Ireland. I know that the law as administered in England is generally fair; that prejudice seldom influences verdicts; that the packing of juries does not exist; that Judges and Recorders are fair; and that those who administer the Criminal Law think more of doing justice to the prisoner than they think of the interests of political parties. I have more confidence in English juries than in any jury selected and packed in the way adopted in Ireland by Attorney General after Attorney General. Therefore, I did not object to the 2nd sub-section, which I believed was the saving portion of the clause—the one Jonah that saved the ship from going down. But Jonah has been thrown overboard to the whale. Although no Irishman objected to the sub-section—although Irishmen had that confidence in England that they believed their countrymen would get better justice before an English jury than under the other machinery provided by the Bill, the provision was so essentially unfair, so atrocious, so contrary to the old and well-established principles of English jurisprudence, so contrary to the spirit of the jury system, that from all sides of the House and from all shades of opinion in the country the strongest condemnation was showered upon it. And yet that provision was less atrocious than anything else in the Bill. There was no Amendment put upon the Paper showing that there was any intention amongst us to oppose it, but at the last moment it is thrown overboard, and the rest of the clause is left in its unmitigated hideousness. What does the section, in its present form, propose? It begins with several lines which, Sir, are so unusual that I defy any of those learned or unlearned Members who sit opposite to point to any English Act of Parliament in which it was ever found expedient that a preamble should be put into a clause, especially a preamble which, like this, involves insult and contumely to a whole people. If the clause is justifiable, it does not need such a preamble——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The Question of the preamble was debated yesterday for two and a-half hours. The hon. Member must now confine himself to the clause as a whole.

DR. COMMINS

Well, Mr. Courtney, the preamble has been passed, and, as I oppose the whole clause as it stands, I thought it was open to me to express my objection to the preamble. However, Sir, I am content to accept your ruling in the matter. Then comes the most material part of what is left of this clause, and that is the arbitrary power which it confers, without supervision or check, on the Irish Attorney General, whoever he may be, not only to select the place of trial, but virtually and practically to select the jury, and to abolish every pretence of fair trial in Ireland. We know how strongly opinion runs in Ireland. we know that the Attorney General is always able to bring that opinion into the jury-box to destroy all chance of any person charged with a political offence having a fair trial. That being so, it appears to me that the clause, as at present framed, places the liberty of every man who happens to be resident in Ireland at the mercy of the Attorney General for the time being, with no legal check on the exercise of his discretion. I oppose this clause because I feel that the very best portion of it has been thrown over, and because, as it now stands, it is an absolute abnegation of fair trial in Ireland.

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

I may be permitted to say one word. We are charged with obstruction, but we have only given the Government time to consider this clause, for they do not seem to have been able to make up their minds upon it sooner. Do you condemn murder and assassination by a Ribbon Society? You do. That is intelligible; but this is a proposal to assassinate by legal methods. The Ribbon Society gives a man a trial in secret, but without the forms of law; of course its murderous executions are of a very hideous and horrible character, and must produce a painful and shocking sensation. But the people have a motive in carrying them out; they think they are justifiable, but they do not believe you have a right to carry out your law in their country, because that law has no moral ground; it has no foundation except that of your bayonets. You propose now to pick out from amongst the population of Ireland a body of men in every county, numbering, perhaps, not more than 1,000 in the aggregate, men who belong to a secret organization, and you want to place on their trial, before these men, the Irish Nationalists. You condemn the Ribbon men for arraigning the landlords before their organization, and upon their verdict after what they call a fair trial, carrying out, the sentences of execution; you condemn them for carrying out their miserable sentences in their miserable Ribbon Lodges; but, Sir, you would drag the Irish Nationalists for trial before a jury of members of the Orange Order—of men who will not, perhaps, sit in the jury box wearing the regalia of their order, but who may have come down shouting—"To hell with the Pope!" or who may be boasting—"Ishot so and so in the Shanklin Road." It is true the Government have dropped the sub-clause. I was careful to say nothing about that clause at any time; but I must now say it is strange that at a period when the country has enlarged the basis of its franchise, and when 500,000 individuals have just been admitted within the Constitution in Ireland, you say that only 5,000 men are to be allowed to sit in the jury-box in Ireland. This is a step back into the dark ages. If you decide on this you will poison public life in Ireland; you will continue to poison the relations and feelings between the two countries, and it can only lead to having the Irish Members expelled from this House. If this policy is maintained in its entirety, you. who are in favour of Union, as you say, will have to see the failure of another of your Crimes Bills, in the same way as you have seen 20 or 30 previous Crimes Bills fail; and if the Germans conquered England to-morrow—which God forbid!—and if they selected 20 or 30 men who supported their administration to be the sole administrators of the law, would you consider justice could be administered in that way? No; you would not. Then why try the same policy in Ireland? And when you have failed in this policy—as fail you must—you will come down with another proposition, and you will say—"It is the agitators." Yes; it will be the same old story. You will complain that it is the agitators who are attacking the privileges of the landlord class, and you will wind up by expelling from this House those who raised their voices—as our future Representatives will—against the continuance of this bad system. Then you will be left alone. I recommend the Government, when their first Coercion Bill has failed, and when their second one has been brought in, to make the latter much shorter, and merely provide that the Attorney General for Ireland may, of his own will, order any Irish Member or Irish peasant to execution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 219; Noes 115: Majority 104.—(Div List, No. 211.) [2.10 A.M]

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) state what will be the character of the Motion of which he has given Notice for debate to-morrow?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I propose to move, Sir— That, at Ten o'clock p.m. on "Friday the 17th day of June, if the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill be not previously reported from the Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair. He shall next proceed and successively put forthwith the Questions, That any Clause then under consideration, and each remaining Clause in the Bill, stand part of the Bill, unless Progress be moved as hereinafter provided. After the Clauses are disposed of he shall forthwith report the Bill, as amended, to the House. From and after the passing of this Order, no Motion, That the Chairman do leave the Chair, or do report Progress, shall be allowed unless moved by one of the Members in charge of the Bill, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith. If Progress be reported on the 17th June, the Chairman shall put this Order in force in any subsequent sitting of the Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

As far as I caught it, this seems to me to be copied in some respects from a former Notice in reference to Urgency. But the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in those Rules with reference to Urgency there was a certain majority required.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It is very irregular to discuss a Motion of which Notice is merely given by permission of the House. It is permissible to ask a Question in regard to it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That is what I am going to do. [Interruption.] I, of course, fully submit to the ruling of the Chair; but I will not submit, nor will I pay any attention, to these interruptions from hon. Members opposite. In order to explain the Question I propose to put to the right hon. Gentleman, I referred to a former Resolution on Urgency and to the majority required by it. I only rose to ask, in reference to this Notice, whether it is proposed that there shall be any particular majority, or whether it is to be a bare one?

MR. W. H. SMITH

We shall not propose any particular majority.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman promised us we should have copies of this Resolution, but we have not had an opportunity of seeing it. I tried to take it down, but that was wholly impossible, for it is as long as "God Save the Queen." I would respectfully ask him is it carrying out the pledge that we should have it at an early hour to give it to us now? I acquit him entirely of bad faith, because at the time the right hon. Gentleman thought it possible the Coal Mines Regulation Bill might be reached by 10 o'clock. But we were promised an adequate opportunity of seeing and handling this Resolution, so as to enable us to put on the Paper any Amendments we might think necessary. I submit that the promise has not been kept. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect us now to sit down and prepare the Amendments, to laboriously copy them out, and to keep the Clerks at the Table after the rising of the House? Does he think it reasonable to treat us in this manner? The discussion should be postponed or the period extended.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am very sorry that the proceedings of the Committee have been protracted far beyond the hour at which I thought we might close. But I do not see how I can possibly postpone the consideration of this Amendment, or extend the Committee stage beyond June 17.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Put it on to Jubilee Day.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of moving any Amendment he chooses.

Committee report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, again resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I wish to ask for what day do the Government put down this Bill? If for to-morrow, I must resist it; because the Government have given Notice of a Motion that must give rise to a long discussion, and it would be unreasonable to expect us to resume the discussion of this Bill after that at a late hour—perhaps 2 or 3 in the morning. At least, let us set it down for a day when there is some probability of its being taken. I move that it be Bet down for Monday.

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

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

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

I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press this Amendment. How long the debate on other Business may take this day I can- not say, but we will undertake that Committee shall not be resumed at a late hour.

MR. DILLON

Then why not put the Bill down for Monday at once, or else let the Motion for Urgency be put down for Monday, a far more sensible plan? I presume the Government do not expect that the Motion for Urgency will be disposed of without, at least, a night's debate.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

What will the right hon. Gentleman consider a late hour? "Will he say that it will not be taken after 10 o'clock, then we shall understand? Let him give us an undertaking that it shall not be taken after a certain hour.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Not after half-past 11.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Then I withdraw my Motion for Monday.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Committee To-morrow.