Commons Sitting of 13 June 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Forestry, Viscount Ebrington added.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Manchester Ship Canal.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Crofters Holdings (Scotland) [287].
Second Reading—Places of Worship (Sites) [5], debate adjourned.
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Sixteenth Night]—R. P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th June], "That Standing Orders G2, 204, 223, and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Houldsworth.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SCLATER -BOOTH: I have to move, as an Amendment to the Motion made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth), to leave out all after "Standing Orders," and insert—
    "204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills."
    I have to offer an apology to the House for interfering with a matter in regard to which I have certainly no personal interest, nor have any of my constituents, so far as I know. But I have, as the House knows, taken some interest in the conduct of Private Business for a good many years, and I was also Chairman of one of the Committees which considered this Manchester Ship Canal Bill, and I have watched with great interest the progress of this important undertaking since. This proposal to pass over the Standing Orders seems to me to go far beyond the necessities of the case, and we are running the risk of being placed in a false position with the country. Everybody must know that of late there has been a growing indisposition on the part of the House to interest itself in matters concerning Private Bill legislation, and there has been a certain degree of recklessness as to the consequences of this neglect, as was exemplified in the celebrated Hull and Barnsley case. It is well known how the House found itself situated in regard to the exceptional legislation which then took place. I do not propose to go into the case now, and I have only alluded to it by way of example; but I think that every hon. Member who is aware of the action of Parliament in that case will

    1707
    not feel inclined to allow on this occasion a second departure which may be established into a precedent, and which may have the effect of misleading public opinion and of inducing those who are ordinarily prudent in regard to the investments they make to relinquish this prudence on the faith of a Parliamentary arrangement. No doubt this case differs very much from that. This is a case where the undertaking has not been commenced, and in which the share list has not been fully subscribed; but, nevertheless, the House is asked to enable the promoters to raise £4,000,000 of capital by Preference Stock, and to pass by that which has always hitherto been regarded by Parliament as an important preliminary—namely, that the consent of the shareholders should have been secured. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) proposes to suspend Standing Order No. 62, which is the Standing Order which requires that a Wharncliffe meeting shall have been held in accordance with the regulations laid down by Parliament, under which the shareholders of a Company should have received due notice so as to give them an opportunity of withdrawing their consent to an alteration in the financial conditions under which an undertaking was originally promoted, and the capital of that Company was authorized to be raised. One of the difficulties I have in pressing this Motion is that it may have the effect of delaying the progress of this measure, and that it may be dangerous to the future success of the scheme. That, of course, I have no wish to do; but I think that Parliament would act very wrongly if it were to allow the Bill to go forward without being satisfied that the spirit of Standing Order No. 62 had been complied with—that is to say, that the original subscribers to the undertaking had cast in their lot with the present Bill. The original shareholders are now told that £4,000,000 Debenture Stock are to come before them, so far as interest is concerned; and what I maintain is that the original shareholders should have a full opportunity of giving their assent, or, if they are so minded, of retiring from any subscription they have already agreed to make. There is another difficulty which I may mention, and that is that the Standing Order refers to the proprietors
    1708
    or the proprietary of the undertaking, and I am not sure that there is any proprietary at all in this undertaking. We have been told that something like £700,000 have been actually subscribed, and that £3,000,000 have been subscribed sub modo—that is, taken conditionally upon something else being completed. It is a matter of doubt whether, if this Bill goes before the Examiners, it could be held that there is any proprietary in the strict sense of the word, or whether those who have only subscribed sub modo are competent to exercise a discretion as to whether the Bill shall be completed or not; but whether it is competent for thorn to do that or not, what I contend is that Parliament should take care that whether they are competent to exercise an opinion "Aye" or "No," that, at all events, they should be at liberty to withdraw their subscriptions if they are so minded. That is the object I have in proposing this Amendment to the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester. I feel that there will be a little further difficulty in the event of this Bill finding its way before an ordinarily constituted Parliamentary Committee—namely, the doubt whether a Private Bill Committee will, unless it receives special instructions, be competent to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. Parliament may incur a heavy responsibility if, without full consideration, it is prepared to sanction such an unusual and unsatisfactory course of action. I, therefore, venture to hope, whether my Amendment finds favour with the House or not, that the Bill will eventually be sent before such a Committee as may be charged with and competent to perform the duty of inquiring into the whole facts and circumstances of the case. Knowing the value which at this moment is attached to the time of the House, I do not intend to enter into the subject at any greater length; and I have only considered it necessary to bring it forward now in order that mischief may not be done either on one side or the other. As I have said, I have no personal interest in the case; but I think that Parliament ought to be scrupulous not to establish a precedent which may hereafter prove to be unsatisfactory.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move his Amendment?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Yes, Sir.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the words "Standing Orders," to add the words "204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. HOULDSWORTH: I fully sympathize with the views which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed on the subject, and I can assure him that the promoters have not the slightest intention, in what they propose to do, of injuring or altering the position of the present proprietors of the Manchester Ship Canal, or the persons who may have applied for shares. We have been most scrupulous on that point, and I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that the steps we are taking will be sufficient to place every applicant for shares and every present shareholder in a position in which he will be not only enabled, but called upon, to give his consent before the arrangement we are asking Parliament to sanction can be carried out. Now, the House will remember that the power which we received under the Manchester Ship Canal Act was a power to raise £8,000,000 of capital. We now propose to divide that capital into two, one part to consist of Preference Stock, which is to receive the first payment of a dividend of 5 per cent; but as this preferential claim is not cumulative the shareholders who subscribe this Preference Stock will take a substantial risk, along with the ordinary shareholders. The ordinary shareholders may be taken to represent the present shareholders and the applicants for shares. Perhaps I ought to inform the House that the present shareholders represent a subscribed sum of £750,000 of capital; the balance between this sum and the £3,000,000 which we have at present guaranteed represent shareholders "who have applied for shares to that extent, and these shares have been applied for on certain conditions, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated. Now, with regard to those applicants, a Circular, which I hold in my hand, has been sent out to them, and the condition there stated is that unless they absolutely and entirely give their consent to this arrangement, and practically apply again for the shares they have proposed to take, we shall have
    1710
    no hold upon them, but they will be perfectly free. With regard to the present shareholders, it is not intended, in asking for a suspension of Standing Order No. 62, to evade the holding of a Wharncliffe meeting. The only portion of the Standing Order we desire to suspend is that part of it which provides that we should report to the Examiners that the meeting
    required by the Act of Parliament to be held has been actually held. We do not intend to evade any of our responsibility, but all we want to do is to save a few days, and we are prepared to give an undertaking, and, if necessary, I should be prepared to add it to this Motion, that we should report to the Committee on the Bill that such a meeting has been held, and that the necessary proportion of the shareholders have given their assent to the undertaking before we seek to have it performed. Under the circumstances, I think the House will see that we have done everything we possibly could to gain the consent of those more interested in the matter. I have no desire to occupy the time of the House or to trespass upon it, for I am anxious to give our opponents an opportunity of saying everything they have to say with regard to the proposition we are now making to the House. Time, however, is an element of the greatest importance in the case. I believe that unless the House is prepared to sanction the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion, it will be almost impossible, if not quite impossible, to make the necessary arrangements for carrying on the undertaking. If opportunity is afforded for a protracted inquiry, the time for the completion of the undertaking, which lapses on the 5th of August, must necessarily lapse. But if our opponents think that the lapse of the powers we at present possess will kill the Manchester Ship Canal, then they are very much mistaken. The only effect of defeating us now will be that we shall have to apply to Parliament again next Session, and another £50,000 would have to be added to the £150,000 already spent by the promoters of the undertaking in getting the necessary sanction of Parliament to it. I believe there is no doubt that, whatever our opponents may do, the feeling of Lancashire and Yorkshire has been so much aroused in this case that the effect of defeating us at this moment will only be

    1711
    to delay an undertaking which its opponents cannot absolutely kill. I am quite aware that we are asking from Parliament, on this occasion, certain unusual powers; but I ought to explain that that is not the fault of the promoters of the Bill; it arises very much from the conditions which were imposed in the original Act of Parliament, by which we were prevented from carrying out any part of the undertaking until practically the enormous capital of £8,000,000 was actually subscribed. That is an unusual condition; but it is not a condition of which we have ever complained, or in regard to which we complain to-day, although it has placed difficulties in the way of the promoters which cannot be fully appreciated except by those who have to carry out the working of such an undertaking. It was made a condition precedent that this very large amount of capital should be raised before the works were commenced, and we have experienced considerable difficulty in raising it in Lancashire at a time when trade has been so much depressed. If I may use such an expression we have had to do it in cold blood, and with a great deal of uncertainty hanging over the people of Lancashire in regard to whether this undertaking will ever really be carried out or not. We are now in a position to say that the arrangements we have made will render it perfectly certain that the capital will be raised without any doubt whatever, and the mere announcement of that fact has had an electrical effect in stimulating the interest which is felt in the undertaking. I am informed that 70 per cent of the shareholders, although they were only applied to on Thursday last, have sent in assents confirming their applications, and that only one-half per cent have expressed dissent with the new arrangement which has been proposed. I may add, further, that there have been new applications for shares from three times the number of persons whose dissent has been expressed; and, therefore, it is quite evident that the shareholders do not believe they can be placed in a worse position than that which they would have occupied before the new arrangement was made. I urgently appeal to the House to grant us the facilities we ask for. We do not require the suspension of the Standing Orders for the pur
    1712
    pose of preventing our opponents from carrying out any legislative opposition they can legitimately bring to bear upon the scheme. The object of asking for the suspension of the Standing Orders is simply to save time, without depriving our opponents of any of the rights they would enjoy under ordinary circumstances. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that our opponents can have very little to do with the question that is before the House, and the proposal which is now introduced. It is not a question in which they are interested in the slightest degree. The opposition to the scheme, all along, has been occasioned by the fact that the opponents thought their own interests were likely to be sacrificed, and that the position of the Port of Liverpool might be jeopardized by the carrying out of this undertaking. I do not believe a word of it. I do not believe that the interests of Liverpool will be jeopardized in the slightest degree; on the contrary, I believe that neither the interests of the Port of Liverpool nor of the Railway Companies will suffer in the end. As I have said, although the matter is of the utmost importance to the promoters, if this Bill is not passed now, it will only delay a measure which must come on again next year. Therefore, if the Bill is to be passed, I would ask the House to pass it at once, because a single day may involve the risk of upsetting the whole of the arrangements which have been entered into.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I think it will be the opinion of the House almost universally that as little time as possible should be occupied in this discussion consistently with the importance of the subject; and it is with the hope of abbreviating the discussion that may follow that I have risen thus early. With respect to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), it has been made clear by the speech we have just heard that the rights of the shareholders will be substantially protected. The spirit of the Standing Orders will be carried out, even if the words are for the moment set aside. The Wharncliffe meeting will be held on Monday next, and, if there be dissentient shareholders, these shareholders will not be precluded from carrying on

    1713
    their opposition to the Bill in precisely the same way as if the Wharncliffe meeting had been held before this stage. Therefore, allowing this stage will in no degree prejudice the right of these shareholders. There is, however, another question of which we shall probably hear a good deal, and which it is important for the House to consider. This scheme has been sanctioned by Parliament, after repeated examinations by Committees of both Houses. It has been sanctioned to this extent—that the opinion of the Legislature has undoubtedly been expressed that it is a scheme which might fairly be tried. At the same time, Parliament has laid down very extreme financial conditions under which it is to be carried out. Those conditions cannot be lightly disregarded. It is impossible to pay attention to the approval of the scheme and disregard the conditions annexed to it. Those conditions, I apprehend, were annexed on this principle—that the scheme does expose very considerable interests to some risk, and that risk ought not to be entered upon wantonly or without some substantial security—not only that the matter was prosecuted banâ fide, but was prosecuted under conditions to give guarantee of the substantial character of the undertaking. It was for that reason, I apprehend, that the strict financial conditions were annexed to the sanction given by Parliament; and the Bill now proposed is, in effect, to dispense in some degree with those financial conditions. We ought, if possible, to secure the same authority in favour of dispensation that we had in favour of originally imposing the conditions. This House, speaking of it as a body, is no more competent to undertake the question whether or no those financial conditions are absolutely necessary than it was competent to undertake the question whether the scheme, as a whole, should be passed or not; but the Committee which annexed those financial conditions to the scheme is a competent body to advise us on the question whether the conditions can be dispensed with. Without, therefore, allowing a Committee to go into the mercantile or engineering character of the scheme, or to enter on that which has been decided, it is, I conceive, a very proper thing that the precise question which is now treated in this Bill—namely, the dispensation with the finan-
    1714
    cial conditions—should be referred to a Committee, and before that Committee the interests which were protected by these conditions should be allowed to appear. I took the opportunity of bringing together the agents interested in this matter—the agent for the promoters, and those representing the London and North-Western Railway, the Mersey Docks, and the Liverpool Corporation—and suggested to them that the Bill might be allowed to be read a second time if it was understood that it should be referred to an ordinary Committee of four Members, and that the examination before that Committee should be strictly confined to this issue—whether the substitution of the proposed financial arrangement was one that could be sanctioned, having regard to the motive and purpose of the original arrangement, and the large amount of capital which is involved. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that since I have been in the House I have received" a message from the agent to the promoters of the Bill, stating that they assent to the condition which I proposed. In these circumstances I apprehend the opponents would be perfectly satisfied with the conditions of reference; and if the agent of the promoters, as I understand, is ready to assent to these conditions, I think the House may consent to allow the Bill to be read a second time, upon the understanding that it shall be referred to an ordinary Committee of four Members constituted for that purpose. No time should be lost in getting to work, and the inquiry, as I have said, should be confined strictly to the question as to whether the financial conditions under which the Bill was formerly sanctioned could be transformed to the proposed conditions consistently with the respect paid to those interests in regard to which the financial conditions were presumably imposed.
    MR. HOULDSWORTH: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the agent for the promoters had no authority to give consent to the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am quite sure he has not done so without authority.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I am quite satisfied with the proposal which has been made by my hon. Friend, if my hon. Friend will undertake that the Committee shall receive an Instruction in the direction I have intimated. In that are the necessary preliminary of

    1715
    a reference to a Wharncliffe meeting might be waived, on the understanding that the Examiners of Private Bills should be satisfied as to the bonâ fide character of the assent of the shareholders in regard to the conditions which I have specified. In that case I shall be perfectly content to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. COURTNEY: I assent entirely to the stipulation which has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) are concerned, in reference to the assent of the agent for the promoters, I have only to say that I received the message from the agent since I entered the House.
    MR. SINCLAIR&c): There is one question which I should like to put to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it has reference to the proposed Reference to the Committee. Will the hon. Member accept the Motion which I have placed on the Paper that the Select Committee to whom the Bill is referred shall consist of nine Members; that the Petitioners against the Bill shall be entitled to be heard; and that the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records?
    MR. COURTNEY: The proposal of the hon. Member is to increase the number of the Committee, which is always undesirable unless there is a special reason for it. I do not think it would be advisable to allow everybody to come in and to raise any matter which may not be legitimate to the issue submitted to the Committee.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I agree with the Chairman of Ways and Means that, as a general rule, it is undesirable to increase the numbers of a Committee, especially in a matter like this, where you have already had the question tried six times over. I think that four Members are quite sufficient to deal with such a question as that which is proposed to be referred to the Committee, and I hope the House will not consent to increase the number.
    MR. WHITLEY: On behalf of the Corporation of Liverpool, I believe I am justified in saying that they will be prepared to accept the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    MR. SOLATER-BOOTH: I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that the Chairman of Ways and Means will frame an Instruction to the Select Committee in regard to the points which I have mentioned.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I should like to remind the House that we have not yet had an assurance that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to accept the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    MR. HOULDS WORTH: All I have to say is that I was not made aware of the negotiations with the promoters of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has referred. I received no information upon the subject of any kind. Now, however, I am given to understand that the promoters have been consulted. I shall not, therefore, further oppose the proposition. I still hold strongly the opinion that the course suggested is unnecessary. The Bill itself distinctly provides that certain formalities must be gone through before the works are commenced, in order that Parliament may be satisfied that the financial conditions have been fulfilled. For instance, the Company are bound to prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that £5,000,000 have been raised in a bonâ fide manner, and a certificate to that effect must be given before the work is begun. At the same time, as there appears to have been some kind of assent given by the promoters, although without my knowledge, to the course now proposed to be taken, I will not further oppose it.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot see that there is any great difference between the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Motion which I have placed on the Paper; and, therefore, on the part of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, I may say that I do not intend to persist with my Motion. At the same time, I think there would be considerable advantage in having the matter thoroughly investigated in the way I suggested.
    MR. ADDISON: As the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means has come on the House by surprise, I should like to understand exactly what it is that is proposed to be done. It must be borne in mind that, up to the present time, the Bill has not

    1717
    been agreed to; and there may be fresh opponents whose opposition would have the effect of increasing, to an enormous extent, the delay which may arise in passing the Bill. What we complain of is that the course which is now being pursued may enable our opponents to do, by a side wind, something which they would not venture to do openly in the House. What I want to know is whether a number of persons who are interested in this question, but who have no locus standi, are to be allowed to appear before the Committee; and in that ease it may be necessary to give a further Instruction to the Committee, somewhat similar to that which was given on Friday night in regard to an important public measure—namely, that the Bill must be reported to the House by a certain day? Unless something of that kind is done, I am afraid that the Bill may be defeated by the
    opposition that may be raised to it in certain quarters, although the opponents can have but a very small interest in the undertaking. For instance, I fail to see what interest the London and North-Western Railway Company can have in opposing a Bill of this kind. The only object of the Bill is to enable the promoters to raise the money which is necessary to enable them to carry out an undertaking that has already received the sanction of Parliament, and they are simply proposing to divide their capital. When I have witnessed the alacrity with which the opponents of the measure—some of whom, I am sorry to say, are sitting near me—accepted the compromise suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I fear that if they succeed in carrying their opposition much further they will prevent the ultimate passing of the Bill. Therefore, I think we ought to know who the opponents of the Bill are, and how many of them are to be allowed a locus standi, and we ought further to know, to some extent, the reasons upon which a locus standi is to be granted.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: As a shareholder of the London and North-Western Railway. I cannot, for the life of me, see what that Company has to do with the matter. This is a question solely as to how the capital is to be raised; and I think the House ought to say that the only persons concerned are the shareholders of the
    1718
    Company and the public. Therefore, I hope that the Instruction moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means will be a very narrow one, or we may have this result—that the persons who have opposed the measure hitherto, and who have been beaten, will raise the whole of their opposition again in a more insidious form. I therefore trust that the Chairman of Ways and Means will take care that the London and North-Western Railway Company are not allowed a locus standi.
    MR. COURTNEY: There is, I think, no danger of the multiplication of persons having a locus standi, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) has suggested. You may be sure the agent will not consent to that. But to enter into the question now raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) would be really to argue the whole question. As a matter of fact, if we are asked now to go into the question whether the London and North-Western Railway Company are to have a locus standi to oppose this Bill, it would amount to a discussion of a question which had far better be left to the Select Committee upstairs. It was in order to avoid a discussion of that kind that I suggested the compromise between the promoters and the opponents, with the sincere hope that the consideration of the matter would not occupy any considerable amount of time. In all probability, the only bodies to whom locus standi will be granted will be the London and North-Western Railway Company, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Corporation of Liverpool, who, in all probability, will be represented by the same counsel, although I am not absolutely entitled to say that that will be the case. At all events, the Reference will be a most narrow one. I believe that both the opponents and promoters of the measure are actuated by a sincere desire that the matter should not occupy much time, and that the Committee should be strictly confined to the point which has been raised. The promoters of the Bill are, I believe, satisfied that the proposal will not in any way imperil the scheme, owing to the efflux of time.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: The Chairman of Ways and Moans cannot guarantee that the in-

    1719
    quiry will be a short one, because that must depend upon the character of the opposition. I therefore wish to give Notice that when the Chairman of Ways and Means moves the Instruction to the Committee, I shall move, as a further Instruction, that the Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House by a certain date which I shall be then prepared to give.
    MR. SINCLAIR: May I ask the indulgence of the House in order that I may refer to an observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison). The hon. and learned Member referred to the alacrity with which the opponents of the Bill had accepted the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I would only say that those opponents would very much prefer to thresh the matter out on the floor of this House rather than in a Committee upstairs; but they have accepted the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, in deference to the quarter from which it proceeded.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made, by leaving out 204 and 223.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 62 and 235 be suspended.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS

  POOR LAW—PAROCHIAL RELIEF, 1886 —STATISTICS.
  MR. HOYLEasked the President of the Local Government Board, How many persons received parochial relief in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, in the year ending 31st December, 1886, and the number in each country of indoor and of outdoor paupers?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am unable to state how many persons received parochial relief in England, Wales, and Scotland respectively during the year ending December 31, 1886. As regards England and Wales, it is the practice of the Local Government Board to obtain Returns of the numbers
  1720
  of paupers on certain days only. On January 1 last there were 822,215 paupers in the country in receipt of relief, of whom 201,698 were indoor and 620,517 outdoor paupers. With respect to Scotland, I am informed by the Board of Supervision that, on January 14 last, the total number of paupers, registered and casual, including dependents, receiving relief was 99,734; and that on January 1 last the total number in poor-houses was 10,233. The Local Government Board for Ireland state that, according to the Returns for the week ended January 1, 1887, the total number of persons in receipt of relief on that day was 113,241, of whom 65,015 received outdoor relief, 47,477 were in workhouses, and 749 in blind, deaf, and dumb asylums.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-STATISTICS.
MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the number of evictions and of persons evicted in Ireland during April and May, 1887?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the number of evictions in Ireland during the period mentioned was 1,013. The total number from the beginning of the year was 4,909, of which 2,733 persons were re-admitted as caretakers.

AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—SCARLATINA—DR. KLEIN'S MILK THEORY.
SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can give the House information as to any investigations which the veterinary officials of the Agricultural Department have been instructed to make into Dr. Klein's theory of scarlatina infection from the milk of diseased cows; whether, at present, any confirmation of that theory has been obtained by the investigations of other medical or veterinary observers; and, whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any Reports on the subject, and any communications which have passed between the Agricultural Department and the Local Government Board?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The inquiry respecting the alleged scarlatina outbreak by the agency of the milk of diseased cows is still being carried on. But, up to the present time, the investigations of medical and veterinary observers do not justify any positive conclusion. Communications on the subject have taken place between the Local Government Board—with which we are anxious to co-operate—and the Agricultural Department, and a Report will be laid before Parliament as soon as the inquiry is completed.

THE CURRENCY—FRENCH AND ITALIAN COPPER COINS.
MR. MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state the quantity of 5 and 10 centime pieces received by the post offices up to the end of May; and, whether he intends to make any further provision for the withdrawal from circulation of French and Italian copper coins?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The total sum of about £23,000 will have been paid by the Mint to the Postmaster General for foreign bronze coin withdrawn from circulation by the Post Office in the United Kingdom to the end of last month. The weight of the coin withdrawn is rather more than 55 tons. By far the greater part of the coin has been withdrawn from circulation in London and the seaport towns in the South and South-East of England. There has been no special demand for British bronze coin, either in the Metropolitan district or the Provinces, in consequence of the withdrawal of foreign coin. It is the opinion of the postmasters that the withdrawal is practically complete, and that during the six weeks allowed for it, from April 20 till May 31, there has been ample time for the public to exchange the amounts which it held. There would not appear to be any necessity, therefore, now that public attention has been called to the matter, to make any further provision for the withdrawal of foreign coin; but notices will be circulated by means of the Post Office and Customs, at seaports, warning the public that the coin is not legal tender in
1722
the United Kingdom, and that its importation is prohibited.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1878— CERTIFICATES OF BIRTHS.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, under "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1878," section 11, a Secretary of State has, as therein provided, issued the particulars and fixed the fee regarding certificates of birth for the purposes of the Education Acts?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): An Order was issued by the Home Secretary dealing with this matter on the 10th of June, 1879, and was communicated to school boards in Scotland by the Scotch Education Department on 4th September, 1879.

LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— ANGUS MACLAUCHLAN.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether due inquiries have been made in reference to the complaint made by Angus MacLauchlan, Carpenter, Aviemore, Inverness-shire, for assault, oppression, and nimious conduct on the part of certain influential persons, the receipt of which complaint was acknowledged by the Crown Agent on 22nd April last?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Due inquiry was made into this complaint on the receipt of the letter acknowledged by the Crown Agent on 22nd April; and on 6th May, by ray instructions, a letter was sent to Angus MacLauchlan to inform him that I did not consider there were grounds for a prosecution at the public instance.

ARMY—CADETS OF THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY AT ALDERSHOT.
COLONEL HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, As to whether it is the intention of the Government to require the cadets of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, to pay out of their own pockets the expenses of attending the Jubilee Review at Aldershot?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said, that the expenses of the cadets in attending the Review would be borne by the Moss Fund of the Royal Military Academy.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN RYAN, AN EVICTED TENANT.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Ryan, who was committed to prison by the High Sheriff of the County of Tipperary on the 31st March, 1886, for taking possession of a holding from which he had been evicted, and whose period of imprisonment is stated in the Return, recently presented to the House, to be for an "indefinite term;" whether the High Sheriff of any county in Ireland has the power to commit to prison for an "indefinite term" an evicted tenant for re-taking possession of his holding; and, whether, having regard to the fact that John Ryan has been in prison for upwards of 12 months, the case will be brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: John Ryan appears to have been committed to prison on June 4, 1886, pursuant to an order of attachment for contempt issued from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland. The contempt committed was that stated in the Return; but the Governor of the prison, in sending forward the materials for the Return, erroneously stated that the committal was by the Sheriff, who merely signed the warrant pursuant to the writ of the Court. The Sheriff, of himself, has no power to commit to prison. Ryan was informed in October last, in reply to a Memorial forwarded by him to the Lord Lieutenant, that any application for his release should be made through the Judge who committed him for contempt; but he has not made any such application. It has been open to him to obtain his release at any time by purging the contempt, and the Government are unable to interfere in the matter.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT-EXPERIMENTAL WIRE GUNS.
SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a 10-inch wire howitzer and a 9½2-inch wire gun were constructed last year at Woolwich; and, if so, what was the weight and cost of each of them; and, also, whether he would be so good as to describe, in regard to the rounds fired from each of these guns—(a) the weight of charge and nature of powder; (b) weight of projectile; (c) muzzle velocity for each round; and (d) the maximum powder pressure, with any other particulars of an interesting character; and, whether he will kindly afford, in an Unopposed Return, any information that he is unable to embody in the answer to this Question?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The two guns in question are entirely experimental, and the Secretary of State does not think it would be to the interest of the Service to publish the details asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend; but he will have no objection to give him such details confidentially for his own information.

METROPOLITAN POLICE—SERGEANT MURPHY.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of Sergeant Murphy, of the Metropolitan Police, any Report has been received from the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth, stating the nature and cause of his illness; and, if not, whether he will make the necessary inquiries?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth, who states that the nature of Police Constable Murphy's illness is very obscure, and that the symptoms probably point to brain disease. He cannot say what the cause of the illness is, or whether it arises from drinking. However, the Chief Commissioner has no doubt from the evidence that this man was drunk on the 12th ultimo, for which offence he was reduced in rank before his present illness came on.

CENTRAL ASIA—TRADE COMMUNICATION WITH THIBET—THE CONVENTION WITH CHINA.
SIR JOHN SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to two communications from Mr. W. Warry, of Her Majesty's Consular Service at Darjeeling. India, to the Dewsbury Chamber of Commerce, copies of which were sent in November or December last to the Secretary of State for India, relating to the opening up of trade with Thibet; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps for giving effect to the clause in the recent Convention with China relating to Thibet?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have read the Reports referred to. Mr. Warry belongs to the Consular Service in China, and was detached for special service under the Government of India. lean add nothing to the reply which I have already given to the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) and others on this subject. The matter will not be lost sight of; but it is not considered advisable to take any further steps at present.

POST OFFICE (LONDON)—POSITION OF PORTERS.
MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, If he will state what number of hours the General Post Office (London) porters have to work; whether there is any promotion open to them as sorters, postmen, or messengers; whether they are liable to a stoppage of pay when absent from sickness, which is not required from men similarly employed in other Departments; and, whether it is a fact that they are not allowed Bank Holidays?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Post Office porters in London work, as a rule, from eight and a-half to nine hours a-day. Promotion is open to them as postmen, as messengers, and also, as far as the limits of age correspond, as sorters. During absence from illness they receive exactly the same proportion of their pay as members of corresponding,
1726
or nearly corresponding, class in the Post Office—that is to say, two-thirds. On Bank Holidays the indoor work of the Post Office is much the same as on other days. Anything in the shape of a general holiday is, therefore, impossible. But in the case of the porters, as of other members of the indoor force, the superintending officers have instructions to lot as many as possible be away.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL —CARRIAGE OF TOWN REFUSE.
MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to introduce a clause in the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, compelling the Railway Companies to carry town refuse at a cheap rate, in accordance with the Petition of the Wandsworth District Board of Works?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It is not the intention of the Board of Trade to introduce on behalf of the Government such a clause as that referred to by the hon. Member.

LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS—THE TRINITY HOUSE REPORT.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in reference to his statement that his chief objection to the investigation, of the Trinity House Report on Lighthouse Illuminants was the expense which would be involved, Whether he has received an undertaking or guarantee from Mr. Wigham that the cost of that investigation would not exceed £2,000; whether Mr. Wigham had also previously offered his own services gratuitously in connection with the inquiry; whether he will consider the advisability of accepting Mr. Wigham's offer and his guarantee; and, whether the Board of Trade have received Memorials from shipowners of Liverpool, Belfast, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and other places; also from the authorities of Queenstown Harbour, repeating their demands made last Session that the Report of the Trinity House should be referred to independent authority for investigation?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I would point out to the hon. Mem-

1727
ber that the question of expenditure was not the only one adverted to in my statement to which he refers. But if such had been the case, the Board of Trade, in the present condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, could not sanction any expenditure not absolutely essential and necessary to meet immediate requirements, even if it were admitted to be otherwise expedient. As regards the last paragraph, I would observe that the bodies referred to have repeated demands on which the Board of Trade came to a decision last year.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that in consequence of the reply of the hon. Gentleman he should, on going into Committee of Supply, call attention to lighthouse illuminants, and the action of the Trinity House in reference thereto.

THE SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
MR. MONTAGUasked the Postmaster General, Whether negotiations are now pending for the renewal of the monopoly of the Submarine Telegraph Company, which expires in 1889; and, whether, before any final decision is taken, the conditions will be stated, so that the various Chambers of Commerce may have an opportunity of considering them?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I am in communication with the Telegraphic Administrations of some of the neighbouring Foreign States with regard to the arrangements which it will be necessary to make for the transmission of telegrams between this country and those States when the concessions now held by the Submarine Telegraph Company from France and Belgium expire in 1889. I do not think that I can promise to submit these arrangements to the Chambers of Commerce; but I shall be ready to consider any suggestion that they may desire to make.

THE "BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL"—ADVERTISEMENTS.
MR. MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury
1728
was consulted and gave its sanction to the Stationery Office, prior to the decision having been taken, to insert commercial advertisements in The Board of Trade Journal; and, whether he can state when the existing contract for advertisements will terminate?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said, the Treasury had been consulted and had given its sanction in this matter. The existing contract for advertisements would terminate on December 31, 1889.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS—THE HAMMERSMITH AND WANDS-WORTH DISTRICTS.
MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, although the population of London has increased since the year 1839 from under 2,000,000 to over 4,000,000 there has not been any increase in the number of the magistrates of the Metropolitan Police Courts, although during that period, in addition to this increase of population, the jurisdiction of the magistrates has been very greatly extended by many Acts of Parliament; and, whether, considering the great increase of population and rateable value in the Hammersmith and Wands-worth Police Court Districts, and inasmuch as this subject has now been under the consideration of Government for more than seven years, and he has twice stated in the House that it is necessary that these Courts should be made whole day Courts, the establishment of such whole day Courts will be carried out without any further delay?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The establishment of whole day Courts at Hammersmith and Wandsworth has been decided on, but not carried out at present, as the Treasury are anxious that the cost of additional magistrates should be saved by a redistribution of the existing magisterial strength. A Departmental Committee is now inquiring, and will shortly report to me, how far such a redistribution is possible. Pending these inquiries no change in these Courts has been made.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—INSANITARY STATE OF DOVER BARRACKS (FORT BURGOYNE).
MR. PEESTON BRUCEasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the expert of the Local Government Board has inspected Fort Burgoyne, with reference to the cases of typhoid fever which occurred there; whether he reports the sanitary condition of those barracks to be satisfactory, or as in need of improvement; and, whether it is still intended to quarter here, about the 23rd instant, a portion of the 4th Brigade Royal Artillery (Fife Militia)?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): The Report of the Inspector of the Local Government Board as to the sanitary condition of Fort Burgoyne has not yet reached me; but the General Officer at Dover has telegraphed that the Inspector is of opinion that the fort will be in a perfectly sanitary condition, providing certain small alterations are made. These can easily be effected before the 23rd instant; and, under these circumstances, the 4th Brigade, Scottish Division, Royal Artillery, will be moved there on that date.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE POLICE BARRACK AT MEENACLADDY, COUNTY DONEGAL—THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SHERCOCK PETTY SESSIONS.
MR. O'HANLONhad the two subjoined Questions on the Paper:—
To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the police barracks lately opened in Magheroarty, in the County of Donegal, have been rented under an agreement terminable at three months' notice, at a rent of £15 per year, from a woman named Tennant, whose husband is now in America; whether the six constables pay above that sum by money deducted out of their wages for rant; whether the Government in other cases pay a portion of the rents; whether the Government now insist on a sum of £40 being expended in repairs by Mrs. Tennant; and, whether the Government will put the house in proper repair at its
1730
own expense, making it suitable for a barracks?
To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is correct, as reported in The Anglo-Celt, a Cavan paper, that Shercock Petty Sessions was hold on the 12th instant; whether Thomas Chambers, Esq., J.P., was Chairman on the occasion; Ben. S. Adams, Esq., J.P., was also present; whether five men were tried for drunkenness, three of them Catholics, and two Protestants; and, whether the Catholics were fined 10s. each, while the Protestants were fined only 2s. 6d. each?
MR. O'HANLON: I wish to postpone these two Questions until they can be answered by the Chief Secretary.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I can answer the Questions.
MR. O'HANLON: I wish to reserve thorn for some future occasion.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is quite competent for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer the Questions on the Paper.
MR. O'HANLON: I propose to ask them——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: With regard to the first Question, the Constabulary Authorities report that this question must relate to Meenacladdy Barracks. It is held at an annual rent of £ 15 under the usual yearly agreement, terminable by three months' notice, from a Mrs. M'Ginley, whose husband resides in America. There are, at present, six men in the barracks, from whom a sum at the rate of £2 12 s. each per annum is stopped, under Statute, on account of deductions for lodging allowance. The Government are not aware of any proposal with regard to an expenditure of £40 on repairs. With regard to the other Question, I have to reply that the Shercock Petty Sessions was held on the 12th May. The magistrates named were present. Ten persons were fined for drunkenness, eight of whom were Roman Catholics and two Protestants. Two of the Roman Catholics, who were disorderly, were fined 10 s. each. One of the Protestants was fined 1s. 6d., it being his first offence, and the other Protestant, who did not appear, was fined 2s. 6d. The remainder of the Ro-

1731
man Catholics were fined the same as the Protestants.
MR. O'HANLON: Having got new matter, in addition to the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not answer the Questions fully. I shall repeat them next day.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS AT BODYKE.
MR. CONYBEAEEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the descriptions in The Pall Mall Gazette of the evictions at Bodyke, and in particular to the statement that one of the bailiffs more than once threw his crowbar through an opening made in the walls of the houses, regardless of the fact that there were women and children inside; whether these men are men of respectable character; or, if not, whether they are in any, and how many, cases convicts or ex-convicts who have been in prison for various crimes; whether these men are employed by the Sheriffs or by the landlords' agents; and, whether, in any case, he will order that they shall he kept under more effective control?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: There was no such occurrence as a bailiff throwing a crowbar through an opening in the walls. A crowbar, on one occasion slipped from a bailiff's hand and entered the house through an aperture in the wall. This was purely accidental, and did not occur a second time. Of the 11 men employed nine are strangers, whom the police believe to be respectable men, and the other two are of the usual class of Sheriff's bailiffs, and have never been convicted of any serious offence. All these men were employed by the Sheriff. The local Constabulary officer reports that the statements in The Pall Mall Gazette about these evictions are highly coloured, quite inaccurate, and, in some cases, utterly untrue.
MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give an assurance that only men who were competent to wield a crowbar should be employed in future?
MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware
1732
that one of the bailiffs engaged in these evictions is a bailiff named Woods, who was ordered to be prosecuted fur perjury by Chief Baron Palles at the late Sligo trials, and on that occasion was censured by the Judge for his conduct at the Woodford evictions?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am sorry to say I have no information on the subject.
MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire?
COLONEL KING-HARMANIf the hon. Gentleman puts a Question on the Paper I will.
MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state to the House from whom he received the statement just read out?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: From the officer in charge of the Constabulary.

POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE NORTHERN MAILS.
DR. E. MACDONAND(for Dr. CLARK)asked the Postmaster General, If he will give a Return of the weight of the mails sent by the 12.40 a.m. train from Perth to the North, and the 3.35 a.m. train from Aberdeen to Keith?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have given directions for the Return to be taken, and will forward a copy to the hon. Member.

WAR OFFICE—CONTRACTS.
MR. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement which appeared in The Morning Post of the 10th instant, to the effect that the Government were now placing contracts for iron goods direct with manufacturers, instead of with "middlemen," having special regard to the quality of goods supplied, and not, as hitherto, exclusively to the matter of price, is correct; if this applies to goods of all descriptions required by the War Office; and, if he is prepared to consider the advisability of issuing a Circular to this effect to well-known manufacturers of high repute, who have hitherto abandoned submitting tenders for Government contracts, on account of the above-named reasons?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: Iron goods and all manufactured articles are invariably obtained by competition among manufacturers only, and any contractor found sending in goods not made by him would be liable to be struck off the list of contractors. The only recent change has been to enlarge the scope of the competition, and the result has been beneficial. No addition to the War Office Circular of 1881, which has been generally communicated to manufacturers, appears to be necessary. The hon. Member has, however, slightly misquoted The Morning Post, which referred not to iron goods, but to iron itself. In this case two well-known firms of iron merchants have been employed for many years as contractors to the manufacturing' departments for iron. When the practice of dealing with agents was discontinued in 1881 it was felt right to make some concession in favour of these two firms; and they are permitted, so long as the then principals continue in the business, to tender with manufacturers, naming in every case the maker of the iron for which they tender.
MR. MUNDELLA: Do I rightly understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if any contractor sends in goods which are not of his own manufacture he will be struck off the list?
MR. NORTHCOTE: NO one is to tender for goods not manufactured by themselves.
MR. MUNDELLA: In case of their doing so they are struck off the list?
MR. NORTHCOTE: They are liable to be struck off.
MR. HANBURY: Does that apply to the cases of Messrs. Latimer Clark and of Messrs. Wilkinson?
MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, he should be glad to answer that question if the hon. Member gave him Notice of it.

POST OFFICE—AN INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
MR. WATTasked the Postmaster General, Whether, since his statement, he has been able to institute such inquiries as might enable him to make a recommendation to the Government as to the formation of a Department, or otherwise, to undertake, at a reasonable charge, the insur-
1734
ance of letters containing bonds, scrip, or other valuable enclosures exceeding £10 in value?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir. I have not; but attention will be given to the subject.

SOUTH AFRICA—SIR CHARLES WARREN'S BECHUANALAND EXPEDITION.
MR. HANBUEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Despatches were received from Sir Charles Warren, dated 6th and 13th July, 1885, giving the military history of the Bechuanaland Expedition, and mentioning the names and services of the principal military officers who assisted in that Expedition; whether Sir Charles Warren's Despatches of 25th August and 18th November of the same year, mentioning the civil and political services rendered by officers and others, have been laid upon the Table; whether any reason exists for publishing the latter, and omitting to publish the former Despatches; and, whether a Copy of the Despatches of July 6th and 13th will be laid upon the Table?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The Despatches of the 6th and 13th of July, 1885, were confidential Reports by the General commanding the Expedition on the various officers and services under him. It is not customary to present such Despatches to Parliament.
MR. HANBURYsaid, he had been told that the Reports were not confidential.

CENTRAL ASIA—THE ADVANCE OF RUSSIAN RAILWAYS.
MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state to within what distance from the present frontier of Afghanistan a Russian railway line is now laid?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Russian railway at present nowhere approaches within 180 miles of the Afghan Frontier. There have been reports that a branch line to Sarakhs, about 75 miles north of the frontier, has been commenced; but these reports have not yet been confirmed.

WAR OFFICE—REPORT OF THE ORDNANCE INQUIRY COMMISSION.
MR. R. POWERasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Report of the Evidence taken by the Ordnance Inquiry Commission will be presented to Parliament?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The Secretary to the Royal Commission informs the Secretary of State that the Evidence will be printed in about a fortnight. I believe the indexing of the Evidence is the cause of the delay; but I will endeavour to see if the production cannot be accelerated. As the Commission was an entirely independent one, the War Office has had no control over the printing of the Evidence.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE BODYKE EVICTIONS—CAPTAIN E. W. D. CROKER.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Captain Edward W. D. Croker, now Sub-Sheriff of County Clare, and officiating at the evictions at Bodyke, is the same Captain Croker who was Governor of the Central Prison, Cyprus, and dismissed by Lord Derby for pecuniary irregularities, and is still an uncertificated bankrupt; and, if so, whether the Lord Lieutenant will cause inquiry to be made of the Sheriff of Clare as to Captain Croker's appointment?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I have not been able to ascertain the accuracy or non-accuracy of the hon. Member's Question; but the Government will make further inquiries on the subject.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON LORD KENMARE'S ESTATE, KILLARNEY.
MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Daily News, of June 10th, that on the occasion of the evictions on Lord Ken-mare's estate in the neighbourhood of Killarney last week, one case, that of a
1736
poor widow named Sullivan, and her seven children, was so distressing in all its features that many of the policemen present turned away and shed tears in silence; that one policeman suggested that a subscription should be raised on the spot; that the idea was warmly taken up by all save some Orange members of the Force, and would have been carried out but for the interference of Head-Constable Rowe, who threatened the men with all the pains and penalties of the Police Code; whether similar collections have repeatedly been made by the police on other occasions; and, whether there is really a provision in the Police Code forbidding members of the Force to contribute their own money for the relief of human misery?
MR. CONYBEAREalso had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the account published in The Daily News, of the 10th. instant, of the evictions on the Kenmare Estate, Killarney, is correct; whether it is true that the case of a widow named Sullivan was so miserable as to cause many of the police to shed tears, and to "speak in terms of condemnation of the cruel business;" whether, on an attempt being made to raise a subscription for the immediate relief of the family, the Head Constable Rowe refused to permit it, and threatened his men with punishment for transgressing the Police Code; and, whether there is any article in the Police Code prohibiting such acts of philanthropy on the part of the police; and, if so, why was such article not enforced in the case of the Glenbeigh Evictions when a sum of £1 2s. 6d. was collected for one of the victims among the constables present, headed by a donation from the Sub-Sheriff himself?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I will now also reply to Question No. 39 put by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) on the same subject. It is not true that the police shed tears, or spoke in terms of condemnation, in the case of the widow Sullivan. There was no attempt by any person to raise a subscription; therefore Head-Constable Rowe could not, and did not, act as

1737
alleged. There is no rule against members of the Royal Irish Constabulary contributing as individuals from their private means to any charitable object. At Glenbeigh a sum of £1 2.s. 6d. was subscribed to pay for the conveyance of an aged woman to the workhouse. She was merely a sub-tenant, and lived on charity. The Sub-Sheriff's deputy subscribed. The Sub-Sheriff was not present.
MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the right hon, and gallant Gentleman to state his authority for the first part of the reply.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The responsible officer in charge of the district.

CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the fact that, on Tuesday the 21st of June, the Metropolitan Police will not only be deprived of the enjoyment of the holiday in which all other classes of Her Majesty's subjects will participate, but will have unusually laborious duties to perform, and taking into account that a similar concession is reported to have been decided upon for the City Police, he will, on this entirely exceptional occasion, consent to grant an extra day's pay to the whole of the Metropolitan Force?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I shall be happy to consider favourably any application that the Chief Commissioner may make to me with the view of granting some special remuneration to those men to whom unusually laborious duties will be assigned on the occasion of the 21st instant.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he proposes to introduce the Employers' Liability Bill?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last week—namely, that I hoped to lay this Bill on the Table before there was any reasonable prospect of the House being able to deal with it.

INDIA-SANITATION.
MR. KENYON&c)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the letter of Mr. Justice Cunningham, in The Times of Thursday last, on the subject of sanitation in India; and, whether the Government are prepared to take any steps to carry out the objects indicated therein?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The sanitary condition of towns and villages in India is constantly under consideration by the Government of India and the Secretary of State; and every effort has been, and will be, made to introduce, from time to time, such improvements as may be practicable.

BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE-REDUCTION OF THE STAFFS OF THE JNDOOR AND OUTDOOR DEPARTMENTS.
MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that the Board of Inland Revenue is reducing in any way the staffs both of the indoor and outdoor departments with a view to economizing the expenditure upon these departments; whether, in connection with the outdoor department, an Order has been recently issued stopping all promotion pending these contemplated alterations; whether, in the forthcoming re-organizations of these Services, it is contemplated to compensate in any way those who suffer from their promotion being deferred to considerably longer periods than they were led to expect when entering the Service; and, whether, with a view to increasing the efficiency of the said Services, and doing away with a widespread cause of complaint in a hard-worked and highly deserving branch of the Revenue Service, the Government will urge upon the Board the necessity there is for formulating some scheme whereby the junior officers and assistants of Excise may look with somewhat more certainty to increments of salary after certain definite periods of service?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHES): Large reforms

1739
the Inland Revenue Service, both indoor and outdoor, are under consideration, which will, I believe, promote both efficiency and economy. I have no reason to believe that the prospects of any member of the Service will be injuriously affected by the changes under consideration.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
MR. MACNEILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether the present mail service by Bundoran to Bundoran Junction is by car; whether this service, by missing the connection with the mail train from Omagh to Enniskillen, causes serious delay to letters; whether the Bundoran Railway runs along the mail car road for its entire length to Bundoran; whether he has received a Memorial, dated 25th May, 1887, from the Town Commissioners of Ballyshannon, setting forth these facts at the request of the towns on the Bundoran line of railway; whether the present contract for the carriage of the mails is about to terminate; and, whether he, before entering into a now contract for a road service, will ascertain on what terms the railway, which runs parallel with the road, will convey the morning and evening mails between Bundoran and Bundoran Junction?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The present mail service from Bundoran Junction to Bundoran is by car. This car is fitted to the night mail trains running in both directions between Omagh and Enniskillen. There wore during the past winter several occasions when, owing to the heavy snow, the car failed to roach Bundoran Junction in time for the train; but, generally speaking, the car works satisfactorily, There is a railway running through the district to Bundoran; but the question of obtaining trains suitable for the mail service, as desired in the Memorial from Ballyshannon, to which the hon. Member refers, will require very careful consideration. There has not yet been time to deal with it since the Question appeared; but a Report is shortly expected. A fresh contract for the mail car has just been entered into. This can, however, be terminated at any time after three months' notice.

JUBILEE THANKSGIVING SERVICE (WESTMINSTERABBEY)—THE ROYAL PROCESSION—POST OFFICES.
MR. HUNTERasked the Postmaster General, Whether the officials, usually employed at the post offices along the route of the Royal Procession to Westminster Abbey, have received notice not to attend on that day, that room may be provided for some of the higher officials of the Post Office to view the procession, without payment?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): No, Sir. In fact, the very reverse is the case. The Secretary of the Post Office made a personal inspection of the offices in question a few days ago, with the object of ascertaining what accommodation existed; and he then informed the officers in charge that it was my particular desire that none of the local staff should lose the opportunity of witnessing the procession.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTIONS AT BODYKE—ALLEGED VIOLENCE TO AN OLD WOMAN.
MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired into the facts described in the following paragraph from The Fail, Mall Gazette of the 9th instant:—
"It is true Pat Walsh's mother of SO was bludgeoned in his house, as she sat in her chair, by a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who formed one of the volunteer storming party, and she has at this moment the marks of his baton in the shape of a bad black eye;"
and, whether the above statements are accurate; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps to punish the conduct of the constable in question, and to prevent similar occurrences in future?
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether it is true that, in certain cases, women have thrown scalding meal, boiling water, and even vitriol on the emergency men and policemen who were there only doing their duty in carrying out the law; and, what steps are going to be taken with regard to Michael

1741
Davitt, who has instigated them to commit such dastardly outrages?
MR. CONYBEARE: Arising out of that Question, I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether there is any allegation that this old lady of 80 years threw scalding meal, or anything else?
THE PARLIAMENTAEY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: With reference to the first Question, I have to say that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that Mrs. Walsh was bludgeoned by a policeman. In regard to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, it is true that in several cases scalding meal and boiling water have been thrown both on the bailiffs and the constabulary who have been engaged in the eviction cases at Bodyke. A case of vitriol throwing has been reported; but we have no statement as to any person having been injured by it. The Government are carefully noting the proceedings of those persons who have been especially prominent in the recent disturbances, and of those who have been the instigators to riot and to breaches of the law.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a very serious statement. I ask him for his authority in stating that a case of vitriol-throwing has been reported? That is a statement which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not make except he is prepared to state to the House, in the first instance, the ground on which he makes the charge.
MR. M. J. KENNY: I wish also to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on what authority he states that Mrs. Walsh was not bludgeoned by the police? She was seen half-an-hour afterwards with a black eye, which she received from a policeman.
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have no knowledge as to whether the lady received a black eye or received any injury—all I know is that she was not bludgeoned by the police——
MR. M. J. KENNY: Certainly she was.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The information comes from Sir Redvers
1742
Buller, who received it from the ordinary sources of information. With regard to the question of vitriol-throwing, the information comes by telegraph from the Resident Magistrate in charge at Bodyke, Colonel Turner.
MR. DILLON: Does the magistrate state that vitriol was thrown?
COLONEL KING - HARMAN: The words came—"Vitriol was thrown."

ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES COMMITTEE—THE COMPOSITION.
MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the late period of the Session, and the general dissatisfaction at the composition of the Army and Navy Estimates Committee, the Government will consider the desirability of asking the House to rescind such portion of the Resolution of the 6th of June as refers to the Army Estimates, and to appoint a separate Committee to consider those Estimates whilst the present Committee consider the Navy Estimates?
CAPTAIN PRICEsuggested that the present Committee might consider the Army Estimates, and a new Committee be appointed to deal with the Navy Estimates.
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I cannot hold out any hope that a separate Committee to consider Navy Estimates should be appointed. I am not aware of the general dissatisfaction which is stated to exist by the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby; and, looking at the close connection which exists between the Army and Navy, the difficulty of entirely separating the expenditure of the two Services, and also to the heavy calls already made on the time of Members of this House by numerous Committees, I am unable to hold out any hope of separate Committees being appointed, at all events in the course of the present Session.

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—THE REPORT.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When will the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board be laid upon the Table;

1743
and, will the Government undertake that the Civil Service Estimate for the expenses of the Scotch Fishery Board shall not be taken until the Report has been in the hands of Members a reasonable time?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)(who replied) said: This report has been delayed by the complication attending the statistics collected by the scientific staff in regard to the experiments relating to trawling. But it is hoped that the Report, which is now in the printer's hands, will be finally thrown off in a fortnight. Although Her Majesty's Government can give no pledge as to the time when the Civil Service Estimate for the Scottish Fishery Board will be taken, owing to the state of Public Business, it is hoped that it may be possible to delay it till after the Report has been in the hands of hon. Members a reasonable time.

DOMINION OF CANADA—INCREASED DUTIES ON IRON.
MR. W. L. BRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the fact that the Canadian Government has imposed an additional duty of 100 per cent on pig iron, 350 per cent on puddle bars, and 155 per cent on bar iron; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will make some representation to the Canadian Government, with a view to the modification of this tariff, injurious alike to the interests of Canada and of this country?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Her Majesty's Government have not received the details of the alteration of the tariff proposed by the Dominion Government; but they are not prepared to press the Canadian Government to modify the proposed fiscal arrangements, for which that Government is alone responsible. Her Majesty's Government will, however, transmit any representations on the subject made by the Chambers of Commerce to the Colonial Minister for presentation to the Premier of Canada. The last words in the Question of the hon. Member are an expression of opinion, which cannot be dealt with within the limits of an answer.

JUBILEE THANKSGIVING SERVICE (WESTMINSTER ABBEY)—TICKETS OF ADMISSION TO THE PLATFORM OUTSIDE OF PARLIAMENT SQUARE.
MR. W. LOWTHER: Can the First Commissioner of Works give the House any further information as to the platforms to be erected in Parliament Square?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): If the Members of the House will apply to Mr. Speaker's Secretary, either personally or by letter, to-morrow, on Wednesday, or on Thursday, between the hours of 12 and 6, for one or two tickets, they will receive one or two tickets as they desire. The price, as I have already mentioned, will be 10 s. for each ticket, and that, of course, should be paid at the time the application is made. This, of course, is to pay for the expense of erecting the platform, and I am glad to assure hon. Members that they, or their friends who may avail themselves of these tickets, will have, I believe, the best view of the procession that can be had; but it will be necessary that they should be in their places by half past 9 o'clock on the morning of the 21st. I again wish to say that I have desired only to consult the convenience of Members, and that I have done the best I could under the circumstances.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: If any profit arises from this transaction, what will become of that profit?
MR. PLUNKET: That is a question which will be reserved for further consideration. At present I can assure my noble Friend that I have not much expectation of any large funds being realized by way of profit. But there would be no difficulty in disposing of a surplus, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by myself.
Subsequently,
MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, When he hopes to be able to inform the House as to the course of Business next week and the adjournment? as it would greatly facilitate the arrangements of those Members who do not care to be in London while the Jubilee is going on.
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I will endeavour to make a statement tomorrow, if it will be for the convenience of hon. Members that I should do so. I had originally intended to state our proposals on Thursday; but I will see if it cannot be done earlier.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.]
  [SIXTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PROCLAMATION OF DISTRICTS.
  Clause 5 (Proclamation of district for the purpose of the preceding enactments of this Act).
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I propose, in the first line of this clause, to move the omission of the words "The Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of the Privy Council," in order to insert "Her Majesty by Order in Council." The effect will be to provide that the proclamation of districts under the Act should be made by Her Majesty in Council instead of by the Lord Lieutenant. The Government are proposing to deprive a majority of Her Majesty's subjects of their Constitutional privileges, and the change involves so grave an exercise of authority that the responsibility of it should rest with the Cabinet as a whole, and not with the Lord Lieutenant. It is said that the Lord Lieutenant is responsible to Parliament; but his responsibility is very different from that of the Government, as a whole, defending its action in this House. The permanent officials of Dublin Castle, by whom the Act will be administered, are not in sympathy either with the people of Ireland or this House, and I should like to see a Ministry responsible to Parliament for the administration of such an Act.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, leave out line 30, and insert "Her Majesty by Order in."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Lord Lieutenant' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I quite sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman in his effort to attach as much solemnity to Proclamations as possible. But I do not think, on the whole, a sufficient case has been made out for the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Government collectively are responsible, and in the present condition of Irish affairs, every important act is carefully considered
  by the Government as a whole. The Irish Secretary is undoubtedly primarily responsible, and the acceptance of the Amendment would take away the initiative of the Irish Secretary. I am not, therefore, prepared to depart from the precedent of a largo number of years.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has admitted the responsibility of the Cabinet. Why, then, should not their responsibility be acknowledged on the face of a Proclamation? The Amendment may be contrary to precedent, but that by no means constitutes a conclusive argument against it, because the precedents made by the Irish Government in the past have all been bad, and the less they are followed the better. Liberal Unionists who on past occasions have not hesitated to condemn the "Castle," ought to support the Amendment, because it will to a certain extent transfer responsibility from the Castle to the Government.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I should like to have a distinct answer to the following Question. Is there a separate Cabinet for the management of Irish affairs? The Irish Privy Council is largely composed of Judges, and we have the statement of Chief Justice Morris that the judicial members of the Council never take any part in instituting or advising criminal prosecutions. By whom, then, are these duties performed? By the residuum of the Council, by men like The O'Conor Don, Mr. Bruen, and Mr. Kavanagh, who have been defeated at the polls by Nationalist Members. Every vile scheme that disgraced England's rule of Ireland in the 18th century was hatched in the Irish Privy Council. I hope that in future

  1747
  there will be no divided responsibility for the advice given to and the action taken by the Privy Council in Ireland.
  MR. PICTON: I think the Amendment is extremely important, and it ought, I hold, to command the support of all Unionists, because its adoption would emphasize the unity of the Three Kingdoms. The liberties of the people in any part of the country ought not to be taken away by an inferior authority. Responsibility for what is done in Ireland under this Bill ought therefore to rest upon Her Majesty's Privy Council. Proclamations issued by the Lord Lieutenant in Council will be less likely to attract attention than Proclamations issued by the Privy Council in England. As it is of great importance that the Proclamations should be as public as possible, in order that they may be discussed and criticized, they ought to issue from the English Privy Council.
  MR. CLANCY: The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Irish Privy Council from acquiring extra powers. At present reprehensible things are done every day in Ireland by persons connected with the Executive, and when Questions have been asked in this House with reference to them, they have been met with lying and evasive answers. I do not mean that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who road the answers out are guilty of falsehood and evasion, but the answers themselves are correctly described by the epithets which I have applied to them. They are generally obtained by the authorities in Dublin from the very persons whose conduct has been impugned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Amendment will not really affect the administration of the Act; and I would, therefore, put it to hon. Members opposite whether it is not desirable to go to a Division at once without further delay, so that other and more important points may be discussed?
  MR. DILLON: If this Amendment would make no difference in the administration of the Act, the Government ought to accept it. Since the Government have now decided to Report the Bill on a certain day, I hope that the closure will now be dropped, and that hon. Members will be saved the trouble of tramping into the Division
  1748
  Lobby on the Motion "That the Question be now put."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As there is only a limited quantity of time left to be spent in the consideration of this Bill in Committee, it would be well to expend that time on points of importance that require consideration. Under the circumstances there appears to be considerable force in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, with regard to the closure. Those who unduly prolong the debate will do so at their own cost.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are prepared to accede, as far as possible, to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) enforced by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The Government desire to abstain from enforcing the closure at all times, and especially under the present circumstances. There are some points of considerable importance that have still to be discussed, and which the Government are most anxious to have discussed. But if unimportant Amendments are debated at length there will be no time to consider these important points. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentlemen would consider what they regard as the really important points with a view to having them fully discussed.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I am of the same opinion as when I moved the Amendment; but I do not desire that it should occupy any more time; and, as it was of no use going to a Division, I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  MR. DILLON: I and my hon. Friends are quite competent to judge what are important Amendments; and within the miserable and inadequate space of time yet remaining, we ought to be allowed to discuss such Amendments as we choose, and at such length as we choose. We refused altogether to take the opinion of the Treasury Bench as to what are important Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has invited us to proceed to what he terms the important points in the Bill; but it is well known that the Government will not make any concession on those points, and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is

  1749
  therefore merely to proceed to full-dress parade debates, from which the Irish Members will gain nothing whatever. We have not hitherto obstructed this measure, and we shall not do so in the future; but we shall continue to contest it, as we have contested it in the past, with a view to getting such concessions as we can. The fact that the Bill is to be reported on a certain day will have no effect whatever in altering our course.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has not suggested that the Members on this side of the House should assist the Government in debating what the Treasury Bench may consider the important principles of the Bill. We, on this Bench, agree entirely with the observations that have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). This is a Bill which chiefly concerns Ireland, and upon which Irish Members have a special right to speak, upon which the opinions of Irish Members are more important than those of English Members. We have no sort of intention of subscribing to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the two Front Benches should settle what are the important Amendments to be discussed, and what are not, and that then we, on this Bench, should be called upon to advise the Irish Members below the Gangway to agree only' to discuss such important Amendments. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian rather was that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, in the short and artificially limited time remaining, should use it in discussing such Amendments as they themselves, and not the Government, consider to be essential.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 167: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 225.) [6.15 P.M.]
  MR. O'DOHERTY MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.) moved, in line 30, after "lieutenant," to insert—" A Judge of the High Court, after a local inquiry, shall so report, may." the hon. Member said: I am of opinion that a district, before it is condemned to martial law, such as is proposed in this Bill, should have an opportunity of testing the state of
  1750
  criminality upon which such a Proclamation as this is proposed to be made. My experience as to the nature of the information which reaches Dublin Castle is that, as a general rule, it is imperfect and ineffective; and if there exists a desire to proclaim a district, I fear that very little attention is to be paid to the actual state of facts, but a great deal more to the state of feeling which exists among a particular class. Much more is done by earwigging the officials of Dublin Castle than by proving the extent of criminality. Of course, we may not know upon what local grounds a man has been arrested; but there ought to be, as a condition precedent to the Proclamation of an entire district by the Lord Lieutenant, under the Act, that a Judge of the High Court should have held a local inquiry, and reported in favour of such Proclamation. The object I have in view in submitting this Amendment is to put an end, if possible, to a state of things which would enable a district to be proclaimed without previous inquiry. I am sorry that I do not see the lion. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) in his place, because he will remember that we had a controversy in regard to the issue of the Proclamation which ended in the wresting of the County of Donegal from the political power of the Hamiltons. In that case there was a Proclamation issued; but so strong were the views of the people in favour of their tenant rights that the issue of it virtually decided the election. I believe it was admitted at last that the Proclamation had been hurriedly made, and that it was based upon information which had been very loosely supplied. The circumstance, however, will give the Committee some idea of what may happen hereafter if precautions are not taken to guard against it. I do not know why the Government should oppose the Amendment, except upon the ground that it may occasion delay; but it must be borne in mind that the 1st and 2nd sections of the Bill cannot come into operation rapidly; and, above all things, the 3rd and 4th sections will necessarily entail delay, seeing that they involve the order for a special jury, and the order for a change of venue. Therefore, there cannot be any objection to the Amendment on the ground of delay. I ask the Committee to consider that the

  1751
  inquiry I am desirous of instituting is not as to the guilt or innocence of an individual, but as to the existence of a state of criminality—whether or not a crime or series of crimes has been committed. The existence of crime is a very different thing from proving the guilt or innocence of an individual; and all I ask is that before an entire district is subjected to martial law, the facts of the case shall be made perfectly clear by means of an inquiry conducted in a judicial manner.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page t, line 30, after the word "Lieutenant," to insert the words "if a Judge of the High Court, after a local inquiry, shall so report, may."—(Mr. O' Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): There are two reasons why the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and they are reasons the force of which will, I think, be admitted by the hon. Member himself. In the first place, I doubt whether an inquiry like that suggested by the hon. Member would be possible, as the Judge would have no power in examining witnesses to administer an oath. The responsibility of proclaiming a district must, of course, rest upon the Executive, and by this clause power is given to the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Proclamation, ''by and with the advice of the Privy Council," whenever it may appear to him necessary to put the powers of the Act into force. I think the Committee will be agreed that the whole of the Government, including the Cabinet, should be responsible for the issue of the Proclamation. If, instead of proclaiming a district on the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, an inquiry of this nature were instituted, directing the Judge of the High Court to examine the facts, and to report to the Executive that a particular district ought to be proclaimed, the Executive would have no alternative but to act upon the Judge's Report, and the responsibility for what is purely an Executive act would be taken from the Executive altogether and placed upon the Judge. The Lord Lieutenant would naturally say that in proclaiming a district he had acted upon a Judicial Report, that he was not ac-
  1752
  quainted with the facts himself, and that he threw the whole responsibility upon the learned Judge who inquired into the matter. Upon all these considerations, I think it would be undesirable to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. MOLLOY: I certainly cannot appreciate the force of the reasons which, have been given by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland for opposing the Amendment. He says that a learned Judge would have no power to examine witnesses or administer an oath, and, therefore, that his advice would be of no value. But can the Lord Lieutenant examine witnesses on oath? The Lord Lieutenant, of his own free will, will be able, under this clause, to proclaim a county or district when and how he likes, and so far as evidence of the existence of criminality is concerned, it will not be necessary at all that he should form an accurate opinion. The Attorney General has let the cat of the bag, because whatever information can be supplied to the Lord Lieutenant could equally be supplied to the Lord Lieutenant by a Judge, and my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment, because he thinks that a Judge would be more capable of examining into the matter than the Lord Lieutenant. It must be recollected that a Judge, when he is elevated to the Bench, ceases any longer to belong to a political Party, whereas the Lord Lieutenant is the direct Representative of a political Party—namely, the Party which may happen, at the moment, to be in power. He is always a Member of the Cabinet, and the proposed reference in the clause to the Privy Council is one of those myths with which we are occasionally indulged in this House. What is a Privy Council? It is a close borough.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling somewhat wide of the Amendment.
  MR. MOLLOY: The alternative given in this clause is that the Lord Lieutenant is to do certain things "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," and it was only in that sense that I presumed to call attention to the matter. I will, however, go no further, but will simply point to an analogous case—namely, that of Wales. There is no Lord Lieutenant in Wales, but there have been disturbances

  1753
  in Wales recently in reference to tithes, which disturbances have been somewhat similar in their character to those which have occurred in Ireland in reference to rent. What would the House say if a proposition were made by the Prime Minister that "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," the Government should have the power of proclaiming a district without submitting the evidence as to the existence and criminality to any properly constituted Court of Inquiry?
  MR. WALLACE: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has assigned a curious reason for the decision he has come to. He says it would be impossible for a Judge to take steps to arrive at any reliable opinion, because he cannot examine witnesses on oath.
  MR. HOLMES: I did not say that a learned Judge could not arrive at a reliable opinion, but I said that if such an inquiry were held, he would not have the power of examining witnesses upon oath, and that his report would relieve the Government from their responsibility.
  MR. WALLACE: I presume that any judicial inquiry is an inquiry by a Judge, and I fail to see why a Judge should not be as able to institute an inquiry into the state of a district as into any other matter. The principal argument for the introduction of the Bill at all was that the Government relied almost exclusively upon the Judges' charges. If that be so, how can they now say that an investigation by a Judge would fail to satisfy either the public or the Lord Lieutenant or the Judge himself? It is utterly impossible to reconcile the two sets of statements. the right hon. and learned Gentleman says the adoption of the Amendment would shift the responsibility from the Executive on to the Judge. That is the very thing that would be valuable. We know very well what value to attach to the phrase "the responsibility of the Irish Executive." I am afraid that they are not much troubled with notions of responsibility, but feel chiefly responsible to their own ideas and their own animosities. That is quite enough to satisfy them without having the slightest regard for the world outside. A Judge, however, is in a very different position. He has a reputation to sustain, and he
  1754
  would be slow to give a decision as to the existence of a state of criminality in a particular locality unless, in his opinion, there was a good deal to justify that decision. Then, again, a Judge would, in all probability, have been for some time in office, and would have acquired habits of impartiality. Whereas, the Lord Lieutenant or the authorities in Dublin Castle have certainly not strengthened their impartiality by the way in which they have acted. One-sidedness is the quality which their position tends most to intensify. For these reasons, I am more convinced than ever that there must be something valuable in the Amendment, in consequence of the inconclusive arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Attorney General—arguments which are entirely at variance with the grounds upon which the Government profess to justify the introduction of their Bill. Their plea for the necessity of a Bill of this kind at all was that, in the opinion of the Judges, a considerable amount of crimiminality existed in certain parts of the country.
  MR. CHANCE: I think that my hon. Friend has been somewhat too severe on the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who feels it his duty at all times to support the administration of Dublin Castle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that if there were a judicial inquiry by a Judge, and his Report was to the effect that no crime existed, that then the Lord Lieutenant could not proclaim the district, but that if the Judge did report the existence of criminality, however undesirable it might be politically the Lord Lieutenant would be left no alternative, but would be bound to proclaim the district. I can quite understand, therefore, the object with which the right hon. and learned Attorney General and the Government object to this Amendment, for I can fully see that the liability to obey the direction of a Judge might, in some cases, be extremely inconvenient. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) or some of his allies going to Ireland and declaring at an election time that South Tyrone was in a shaky condition, and that, therefore, the district had better be proclaimed with the usual accompaniment of batoning the people

  1755
  and running them into gaol for a few weeks until it might be possible to tide over the election. I have no doubt this would be a very convenient arrangement for the purpose of carrying a eon-tested election, or even to secure the appointment of guardians of the poor and so on. I therefore think that the hon. and learned Attorney General, from his point of view, has acted with extreme wisdom in objecting to the Amendment; but I think it would have been more manly and straightforward if he had given the real ground for desiring to retain the clause as it stands—namely, that he may be able to use it hereafter for political purposes.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I cannot help thinking that there is something extremely suspicious about the refusal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to allow a Judge to inquire into the state of a district before it is proclaimed. I can quite conceive why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, the adoption of which would give the Irish people the satisfaction of knowing that if a district is to be proclaimed it will not be proclaimed in a haphazard manner according to back stairs information supplied to the Lord Lieutenant by interested parties, but that no district will be proclaimed without a Judge having first decided that there was a state of disturbance in the district which warranted its Proclamation. The simple difference between us as to the Amendment is this—that if the Amendment is accepted we shall all have the satisfaction of knowing that there must be an inquiry before a district is proclaimed, whereas if the Amendment is refused there will be no inquiry at all. If the Government were animated by fair and upright motives they would accept the Amendment, knowing very well that if an inquiry were held it would at least satisfy the public that there was an excuse for the Proclamation of a district, and more than that—if a district is proclaimed in Ireland Her Majesty's Advisers would be able to say to the people of England that the course taken was justifiable. They would be able to say—"It is quite true that we have been obliged to proclaim this district, but we did not do it until an inquiry was held, which inquiry was presided over by a Judge of the High Court, and we have
  1756
  his certificate that the district is in such a condition as to require its Proclamation." If the real object of the Government were to put down crime and outrage they would not object to a Court of Inquiry; but, as a matter of fact, they do not wish to proclaim districts in Ireland because of the existence of crime and outrage, but simply in order that they may strike political opponents and combinations of tenants against harsh landlords. They desire to retain in the hands of the Executive, and of the advisors of the Executive, the power of proclaiming a district from private motives without the slightest regard to the existence of crime and outrage. I think we have proved quite sufficient, in this discussion, to show that what the Government are aiming at is not the Proclamation of a district on account of the existence within it of crime and outrage, but to put down lawful and legitimate combination. If it were otherwise they would not refuse this Amendment. But they know that the result of an inquiry, in almost every case, would be that the district would not be proclaimed. Of course, that would not suit the Government, because they wish to retain in the hands of Dublin Castle the right of doing this without reference to a judicial decision of any kind. I am glad that the Government have refused the Amendment, because it clearly shows what it is that they are really desirous of striking against. I think there is no hon. Member representing an English constituency who will not say that our request is fair and reasonable, and that the Government are unreasonable in refusing it.
  MR. CLANCY: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) should have talked of the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Executive. That responsibility has been shown again and again to be perfectly illusory, and to mean nothing whatever. In one passage of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that if a Judge reported in favour of the Proclamation of a district the Government would have no alternative but to proclaim it. Now, to say that the desire of the Government would be not to proclaim a district is surely an attempt to impose upon the credulity of hon. Members, The right hon. and

  1757
  learned Gentleman says that no means have been provided by which such a judicial inquiry could be hold by a Judge, but the Government are not so destitute of resources that they are unable to provide the means. A clause of six lines would give them every power, and would enable them to send for persons, records, and documents. The right hon. and learned Attorney General, however, let the cat out of the bag, and gave up the whole of the case when he refused to submit to the decision of the Judges. What he says, in fact, is that these Proclamations will be issued as the result of secret ear-wigging between the landlords and the officials of Dublin Castle. Let me give an instance, to show the value of one of those Proclamations, and the manner in which they are obtained. I refer to a case which occurred last summer. There wore several prisoners tried on the 25th of June last in the County of Longford, under the Whiteboy Act, and the question of the state of the district was an element in the case of the prosecution. There was an attempt to prove that the district was in a disturbed state by producing a copy of The Dublin Gazette, in which the district had been proclaimed. Chief Baron Palles presided at the trial, and, not being satisfied with the mere production of the The Gazette, he addressed Mr. Trench, the Crown Prosecutor, in these words—"Do you intend to give evidence of the state of the district? "Mr. Trench—"We have The Gazette here proclaiming the district." The Chief Baron, not satisfied with this, proceeded to question the police constable, and this conversation occurred:—
  "Chief Baron—' Is this district in a disturbed state, sergeant?'—Sergeant Jennings—'Well, not much; nothing extraordinary.'—Chief Baron—'Wo do not want to hear anything about extraordinary. Was this district quiet on or about the 25th of June last?' Sergeant Jennings—It was quiet, my Lord.'"
  Mr. Trench, Q.C., said he would close the case for the Crown by handing in The Dublin Gazette, proclaiming the district in question.
  " Chief Baron—' Is there anything in the Statute, Mr. Trench, which says that the Proclamation in The Gazette is to be taken as conclusive evidence of the disturbed state of a district?' Mr. Trench—'No, my Lord, except that it may be taken as primâ facie evidence.' Chief Baron—' But it is of no value in the face
  1758
  of a statement of a witness who swears that it was quiet.' "
  And the Crown Prosecutor had the grace to say, "No, my Lord." It appears that the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Benjamin Hill, R.M., was present. Mr. Trench thought his best course was to call Mr. Hill to contradict the statement of the sergeant of police, and I ask the Committee to watch the result.
  "Mr. Trench, Q.C.—' With your permission, ray Lord, I would like to go back and produce Mr. Hill, the Resident Magistrate, and ask him about the state of Longford.' Chief Baron—' It is very irregular. The thing has become serious now, for you are producing one witness to contradict another witness of yours.' Mr. Trench—' Well, my Lord, he said, it was not much disturbed.' Chief Baron—' He made use of the expression, but I made him go back and answer the question distinctly. I have his words down, and I will leave the question to the jury.' Mr. Trench—' I know it is irregular, my Lord, but I wish to ask Mr. Hill some questions.' Chief Baron—' Very well.' "
  Mr. Hill, however, grievously disappointed the learned gentleman. Here is a report of Mr. Hill's examination—
  "Mr. Benjamin Hill, R.M., was then called, and on being sworn, said—' That he could not say the district was very disturbed; but he had two police posts on derelict farms—one on Lord Annally's estate, and the other on the estate of M'Collom's minors. The Annally protection post was in existence last June, and the other was established a month ago.' Mr. Featherston—' Is not the County of Longford, and particularly the south, in a very quiet state? Was it not quiet last summer, and is it not so? 'Mr. Hill—'Yes.' Chief Baron—'Can you say, that at this time, it was in a state of disturbance? 'Mr. Hill—' There were some cases of trespass on these derelict farms, but they had no serious outrage.' "
  There can be very little doubt, after this evidence, that it was Lord Annally who got the County of Longford proclaimed on that occasion, and what we want to prevent is, that any man, like Lord Annally, engaged in a contest with his tenants, should be able to go up the backstairs of Dublin Castle and earwig the Lord Lieutenant into issuing a Proclamation to serve his private interests. The Irish Members have no objection to a judicial inquiry conducted by one of the Judges of the land; but they do object to Lord Annally or any other Irish landlord having a right to say a word on the subject, seeing that they are the very persons who are most deeply interested in the matter. If the individuals chiefly interested in getting a district proclaimed are to have the ear of the Lord Lieu-

  1759
  tenant, and are to be able to set the machinery in motion, then I maintain that it will be impossible to avoid doing the grossest possible injustice under this section.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As I understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the right of judging whether a district is in such a condition in reference to criminality as to justify its proclamation is to rest solely with the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no precedent for this semiofficial inquiry into the state of a district for which we now ask. Now, I assert that there is, and the Committee will have already gathered that that is so from the newspaper report of the case which occurred in the County of Longford which has just been read by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). Under the White-boy Act it is necessary to show that when a particular offence has been committed the district was in a disturbed state. If that were proved the offence thereupon became a criminal offence. which otherwise it would not have been, That being so, we certainly have a precedent in the existing legislation for submitting to a judicial tribunal the question whether a district was in a disturbed state or not. Under the Whiteboy Acts it was necessary that the matter should go through a jury. That, however, is not necessary under this Bill; but I wish to point out that it has a direct bearing upon the proposals contained in the Bill. The Act itself is to be set in motion by the finding of a tribunal in exactly the same position as a Judge would be in if he were to hold an inquiry of this kind. When Lord Cowper's Commission sat a large amount of evidence was taken in reference to Boycotting, but the Commission had no power to accept sworn testimony, and every item of evidence given before the Commission was evidence which could not be subjected to cross-examination, and they had no power of rebutting anything the witnesses stated. Nevertheless, that Commission had the power of summoning witnesses before them. That being so, we have surely a right to submit to the Committee that if the class of unsworn evidence taken by the Cowper Commission was a sufficient justification
  1760
  for applying the principle of coercion to Ireland, it will be a much less strong and a much less drastic proceeding to give power to a Judge to make a judicial inquiry before a district is proclaimed. That is my reply to one of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The other point was the familiar one, that if before you proclaim a district you send down a Judge to hold an inquiry of this kind, and make it a condition precedent, you divest the Executive of all responsibility. That would be an effective argument if we either proposed to take away the responsibility of the Executive, or if the responsibility of the Executive really amounted to anything. We really do not think that it does, and on the principle that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," whatever value there may be in an inquiry of this kind, it is quite evident that the Irish people might occasionally get a fair decision, and would obtain more substantial justice than if they are left to the irresponsibility of the Executive. My knowledge of the Executive in Ireland induces me to believe that, no matter what Government happens to be in Office, the Executive would do anything the Government called upon them to do. At any rate, that is our experience of the past. We consider that this preliminary inquiry would have a special value. We ask, before the liberty of a district is taken away, by the whispering of a landlord or his agent into the ears of the officials of Dublin Castle, that the district, at any rate, shall have the opportunity of defending itself before a public officer who shall hold a regular constituted judicial inquiry.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: lam surprised that the Government have refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The adoption of it would save them a good deal of this responsibility which they seem to regret; it would save the Lord Lieutenant himself from being advised by the Reports of the Resident Magistrates or of the police, who, of course, have an interest in sending them. In many cases a magisstrate, such as Captain Plunkett, may be inclined to send in a Report as to the disturbed state of a district, which Report, when thoroughly inquired into by a Judge, would be found to be utterly destitute of foundation. Then, again,

  1761
  the Resident Magistrates themselves are liable to be deceived or mistaken by the Reports which they receive from the police and their subordinates. In many parts of Ireland it is said that there is what may be described as a state of siege, rather than the administration of the ordinary law; and the police in Ireland, as well as the Resident Magistrates, together with the ordinary officers of the law, are desirous that the law should be set aside, and that they should be armed with powers to enable them to perform their duties with as little trouble to themselves as possible. There is an old saying that nobody can rule in a state of siege; but the Irish police fancy that they can rule districts in the remote corners of Ireland when they are aided and assisted by the powers which this Act will give them. In point of fact, they are of opinion that they themselves may be enabled to place the country in a state of siege. But I think it would save the Lord Lieutenant himself from being betrayed into the commission of any serious mistake if this Amendment were adopted. we know that ''distance lends enchantment to the view," and people who are removed to a distance from Ireland conjure up all kinds of fears as to the state of things which is prevailing in that country. Not long ago I met in London a lady who was about to visit Ireland, and who said that she was going there in fear and trembling for her life. I saw her again upon her return, and she told me that she had found the Irish people the kindest, the mildest, and the quietest in the world. It was "the distance" that led this lady to conjure up fears in regard to the disturbed stated of Ireland; and so it is with the Lord Lieutenant. He sits in Dublin Castle, and he hears nothing but the reports of biassed chief magistrates, or lazy sub-constables, and officials who desire to get this power, and who are in the habit of looking at these districts through a long telescope, which produces the picture of a terrible state of affairs. Having received these dreadful reports, the Lord Lieutenant is tempted to proclaim the districts to which they relate. All this difficulty would be avoided by the appointment of a Judge to conduct an official inquiry, and take evidence as to the state of the district on the spot. Let me give the Committee an instance to show the ex-
  1762
  aggerated character of the reports which are made to the Lord Lieutenant. In one district—that of Castleisland—a place which has been tolerably well known lately—there was found a Resident Magistrate who had a conscience, and who, on being put upon his oath, was disposed to tell the truth. I allude to Mr. Davis, of the Castleisland District, who stated, before the Cowper Commission, that the terrible accounts which had been given of that district had no foundation at all; that the district was not disturbed; and that there were only two persons who were suffering seriously from Boycotting. This is the very district which furnished the late Mr. W. E. Forster with all his statistics in justification of the Crimes Act of 1882; and yet you have a man—the Resident Magistrate attached to the district—declaring that there are only two people in it who are seriously Boycotted. I am informed by an hon. Friend of mine, sitting near me, that this fair-minded magistrate has since been transferred; it appears that his services are not wanted in the district of Castleisland, because he happened to tell the truth. It is for these reasons I say to the Committee, and to the Government in particular, that it is to their interest to accept the Amendment. It is certainly to the interest of the Lord Lieutenant to accept it, because it is likely to save him from exaggerated reports on the part of the Resident Magistrates and police. Further, it is to the interest of the good government of the country that the responsibility should be placed on some judicial personage, who would make an inquiry on the spot as to the necessity of the proclamation of the district. For these reasons I support the Amendment; and I would strongly urge upon the Committee the desirability of accepting it, and adding it to the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 202: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 226.) [7.15 P.M.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I have to move an Amendment, in line 30, to leave out the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council." I believe it is a fact that the Privy Council in Ireland does not occupy the same position as the Privy Council in this

  1763
  country. The Members of the Privy Council are certainly much too numerous for effective consultation; and, as a matter of practice, I believe they are never consulted as a body. On the contrary, the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive content themselves with seeking advice from a small number of the Council who are Members of the Cabinet. We all know very well what a Cabinet is; but, as a matter of fact, it is a body which has no legal existence. When an lion. Gentleman is promoted to Cabinet rank, the position he occupies is not recognized by any Act of Parliament, and, so far as the law is concerned, "the Cabinet" is altogether non-existent. We have been told that the Judicial Members of the Privy Council do not concern themselves with the initiation of criminal proceedings, or with matters appertaining to criminal proceedings. It follows, therefore, that when the Lord Lieutenant seeks the advice of the Privy Council with reference to such matters, he applies to what has always been described as the residuum, of the Council, consisting of discredited politicians. In former times the English Privy Council was a consulting body; and, to some extent, that state of things still prevails in Ireland, with the necessary consequence that the Privy Council exercise a most dangerous and a most noxious influence upon political Parties in Ireland. It is that state of things we desire to put an end to, so far as the administration of this measure is concerned. We ask that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be permitted to evade his responsibility; we ask that if the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant happens to be impugned in this House or elsewhere, he shall not be permitted to say—"I acted, not upon my own initiative, but upon the advice of the Privy Council." We ask that the responsibility shall rest directly with the Lord Lieutenant and the Government of which he is a Member, and that in this case the old maxim, that "what is everybody's business is nobody's business," shall not be allowed to operate. Moreover, we ask that the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant as to the administration of the provisions of this measure shall not come from a body composed exclusively of men who for years past have been in bitter conflict with the mass of the people of Ireland. For these reasons I
  1764
  move the Amendment; and I cannot help expressing my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who has placed an Amendment on the Paper in precisely similar terms to that which I am now proposing, is not in his place this evening to move it. I think it would have been very interesting, as a matter of curiosity, to know what are the views of the particular body to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs upon this subject.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "by and with the advice of the Privy Council."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): It is usual to provide, in matters of this kind, that the Lord Lieutenant shall act "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," and the Government cannot accept the Amendment, which would be a new departure. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seem to think that the Lord Lieutenant should be solely responsible for issuing Proclamations under this measure; but, in the opinion of the Government, it is more desirable that he should follow the usual course of acting "by and with the advice of the Privy Council."
  MR. CLANCY: I judge from the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, because they wish that the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant should be shared by someone else.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All that we say is that we are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. CLANCY: It has been said that the Irish Judges give advice to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to proceedings in criminal cases; but I think I am bound to accept the statement of the Lori Chief Justice of Ireland, made only recently, that the Irish Judges do not take part in matters of this kind except as a mere formality. Who, then, would be the persons left who, as Privy Councillors under this Bill, would perform the duty of advising the Lord Lieutenant? They are chiefly ex-Chief Secretaries of the Lord Lieutenant, such

  1765
  as Sir George Trevelyan, the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), Mr. James Lowther, who never, I believe, attended a meeting of the Privy Council, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who, also, has never been present at the meetings of the Privy Council. Consequently, the duty of advising the Lord Lieutenant will be left to the following persons:—-In the first place, there is the Duke of Leinster. [An hon. MEMBER: He is dead.] I am reminded by my hon. Friend that the Nobleman whose name appears at the head of the list as Duke of Leinstor, and who had a seat on the Privy Council, is dead. Therefore it will be necessary to omit him from the list. I very much regret it, because I was going to point out that he was the only decent man of the lot. The next name on the list is that of the Marquess of Waterford, a Nobleman well-known as one of the foremost champions of the Orange Landlord Party in Ireland, and noted for his rack-renting antecedents and for his quarrels with his tenantry. Only very recently the noble Marquess challenged his tenants to go into the Land Court. He asked them for an increase of 50 per cent upon the whole of their rents, and the judgment of the Court was to reduce the rents by 50 per cent instead of to increase them. The next name upon the list is that of the Marquess of Drogheda, a worthy brother-in-arms of the Marquess of Waterford. He is not merely a Tory—I do not object so much to his being a Tory. [A laugh.] I observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), who was returned by the casting vote of the Returning Officer of that borough, and who is one of the most demonstrative Members in this House, laughs. Well, I have said that the Marquess of Drogheda is a brother-in-arms of the Marquess of Waterford; and, so far as rack-renting is concerned, I believe the Marquess of Drogheda to be one of the worst landlords, not only in Ireland, but in the civilized world. It is pretty generally known that the Marquess of Drogheda has been constantly engaged in conflicts with his tenantry, and that he has been proved over and over again to be a rack-renter of the most ferocious description. The next name is
  1766
  that of the Marquess of Headfort, who is another of the same class, and then comes the Earl of Belmore, who also takes premier rank among the landlord party, and who is followed by Viscount Monck, whose career as an Irish landlord has certainly not been unexceptionable. We come next to the Right Hon. W. H. Cogan, one of the gentlemen who have been expelled from the Irish representation. He is another member of the landlord class, and he will endeavour, no doubt, to assist the Lord Lieutenant by justifying the actions of His Excellency whenever a desire is expressed to proclaim a branch of the National League in a particular district. Then follow the names of Sir William Gregory and Mr. H. Bruen, the latter of whom was expelled from the representation of the County of Carlow. Mr. Bruen stands in the very front rank of the rack-renters of that county, and he has a personal interest in seeing that the provisions of this measure are put in force in the most merciless manner. The same may be said of Mr. Arthur McMurrough Kavanagh, who was one of the principal landlord witnesses before the Cowpor Commission, and who boasted before that Commission that he had cut out of the newspapers everything that reflected discredit on the National League; that he had pasted his cuttings on pieces of paper; and that he was ready to put them in as evidence before the Commission. That gentleman would, I feel satisfied, be most effusive in the advice he would tender to the Lord Lieutenant, and would feel it a sacred duty to tell him to suppress right off every branch of the National League in existence. Then we have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is called here Colonel Edward Robert King-Harman. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] The Chief Secretary says "Hear, hear!" which means, I presume, that he is greatly assisted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the discharge of his duties in this House. I congratulate him on his taste and judgment. I have mentioned the names of some of the gentlemen who will have to advise the Lord Lieutenant in putting the provisions of this Act in force. How this family party will work is clear enough. They will dine together on some special evening, and discuss the shortcomings of the National League;

  1767
  and then they will advise the Lord Lieutenant that certain branches of the League are keeping the whole countryside in a state of disturbance, and that the district ought to be proclaimed. In that way the whole thing will be done, and the liberties of the people of the district will be completely taken away. A more disreputable and a more disgraceful mode of proceeding was never heard of in any civilized country. It is altogether foreign to anything like Constitutional government. We know very well that the statements we make on this subject will be characterized as exaggerated. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] But I will commend to the attention of the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side who says "Hear, hear" the recent statement by Sir George Trevelyan, which bears out, in substance, every single word the Irish Members have advanced from those Benches. Sir George Trevelyan states distinctly that he knows, from official experience, that a certain ring exists in Dublin Castle by means of which alone this sort of machinery is kept going. When we have an important witness like that upon our side I do not think it necessary to refer more particularly to the sneer of the hon. Gentleman on the other side. As I have pointed out, the Members of the Privy Council who will give advice to the Lord Lieutenant will consist of the working gang of the Council, who are the worst landlords who can be found in Ireland—landlords who have long been in conflict with their tenants, and whose rents have been cut down 40, 50, and 60 per cent by the Land Courts, and who have, therefore, personal motives for taking vengeance by a merciless use of this Act. It is a gang of this kind that is to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to the issue of these Proclamations, and it is to their will and by their fiat that you are to control the liberties of the Irish people.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I was under the impression that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was superfluous, because I understood him to say that "by and with the advice of the Privy Council" was purely formal. I remember that when I was engaged in passing through this House a small measure last year, the same kind of
  1768
  criticism in reference to the Privy Council was made which is being made now. and on that occasion I felt it my duty to point out that the action of the Privy Council was little more than nominal and purely formal. I understand the Chief Secretary to say now across the floor of the House that the Irish Judges do take part in the deliberations of the Privy Council, and give advice in executive action?
  MR. A, J. BALFOUR: What I said was, that I could not accept an Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), because it would prevent the Lord Lieutenant from taking the advice of the judicial element of the Privy Council. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) has pointed out that the reason why we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) is, that we proposed to deal constitutionally with the matter in this Bill. It has been stated that it was not customary for the Judicial Members of the Privy Council to concern themselves with the initiation of proceedings; but, if that was so, the object is to provide that they shall concern themselves with it in future.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It is impossible to understand that the Government can have any logical reason for objecting to this Amendment. When the last Amendment was proposed the Government alleged that they could not accept it, because it would remove responsibility from the Lord Lieutenant. That was the only answer they made to the Motion for inserting the words proposed. Now, we move the omission of words from the clause which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to take advice with reference to the proclamation of districts from whomsoever he pleased, in order that he might be responsible for proclaiming the districts; but this time we are met by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) in quite a different strain. We find ourselves quite unable to fix the Government by any argument that it is possible to bring forward, because they slink away from every argument, even their own. After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and that of my hon. Friend the

  1769
  Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), there is no doubt whatever as to what will be done in these eases of proclamation. As a matter of fact, instead of the words "by and with the advice of the Privy Council," the clause ought to run "by and with the advice of the executive or police in the county." That would be the true interpretation of the intentions of the Government Besides that, it will be from the ranks of the permanent officials that appointments will be made when vacancies occur from time to time, and it will be upon the opinion of such gentlemen as these that the judgment of the Lord Lieutenant will be formed. I cannot understand why the Government should wish to retain these words, unless it be for reasons that have been given; and, without wishing to detain the Committee at greater length, I would suggest to the Government that, perhaps, the proper wording for the clause would be—"The Lord Lieutenant by and with the advice of a Council of War," and so on.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Southwark (Mr. A. Cohen) I rise to propose the Amendment standing in his name, which is one of considerable importance. It is, besides, an Amendment in respect of which I appeal to the Government with great confidence, in the expectation that they will agree to insert the words I propose in the clause. During the discussions on this Bill we have had frequent references to the Act of 1882; and in the case of many Amendments proposed on this side of the House, when anything has been stated contrary to that Act, we have had the Act quoted against us. We have now to propose an Amendment in accordance with the Act of 1882. The clause before the Committee follows the words of the Act of 1882, with a single exception. The Act of 1882 provided that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should only proclaim a district where it was necessary to do so "for the prevention of crime and outrage;" and I propose, therefore, to insert these words in the clause which is now before us. I think I have shown a very strong case for appealing to the Government to accept this Amend-
  1770
  ment. Then, as to the importance of the Amendment. In the clause as it at present stands there would be no direction whatever to the Lord Lieutenant as to the circumstances under which he might proclaim a district in Ireland. It will be left entirely to his discretion whether he is to proclaim a district or not, and the causes which may influence him will be various. There may, for instance, be an article which appears in a newspaper in one of the districts which he may not like, and which the Law Officers might tell him could not form the subject of a prosecution with any chance of success, and he might endeavour to meet the difficulty by proclaiming the district. Then, again, it might be that owing to a combination among his tenants a landlord could not got his rents, and that the members of the combination, although not refusing to pay the rent, were only able to pay a reasonable amount. In this case the landlord might go to the Lord Lieutenant and induce him to believe that such a condition of things existed in the district that it ought to be proclaimed. Now, neither of these things could have been done under the clause of the Act of 1982, when there was a much greater danger to the landlords in Ireland than there is now. As I have said, the clause of the Act of 1882 directed that a district should only be proclaimed when it was the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant that it was necessary to proclaim it for the prevention of crime and outrage. I have looked back to several Coercion Acts, and I find that in them all there are words to this effect, generally limiting the action of the Lord Lieutenant. In the Act of 1835, which was the strongest Coercion Act passed in this House, as it came down from the House of Lords, there were no such restrictive words; but the House of Commons inserted words to provide that no proclamation should be made of any district merely for the refusal to pay tithes. The insertion of the words I refer to shows how necessary the House of Commons considered it, even under stronger circumstances than exist at the present moment, that the proclamation of a district should not take place on account of any agrarian movement. Now, the words which I propose to introduce, and which were contained in the last Coer-

  1771
  cion Act, have been omitted from the present Bill, and I ask the Government why it is that those words are left out? We have heard often enough of the precedent of the Act of 1882, Why, then, have the Government not followed the precedent of the Proclamation Clauses is that Bill in this respect? There must be some reason for it, and I venture to ask the Government, even if they do not accept the Amendment—which appears to me to be both reasonable and proper, and for which there is the strong case I have brought before the Committee—I ask them why it is they have omitted these words? I do not wish to detain the Committee at any length in moving this Amendment; but I repeat that a strong case has, in my opinion, been made out for following the wording of the Act of 1882, which placed a limitation on the action of the Lord Lieutenant in proclaiming a district. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, they should, at least, tell the Committee why the words have been omitted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, after the word "necessary," to insert the words "for the prevention of crime and outrage."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The right hon. Gentleman asks us for our reasons for not inserting the words of his Amendment in the present clause. If we had considered that these words were fit and necessary we should have been pleased to insert them; but our own opinion is that they would not be proper in the present Bill, and that they were out of place in the Act of 1882. I point out to the Committee that this is a Bill not only for the prevention, but for the punishment of crime in Ireland; there are several sentences in the Bill also referring to the detection of crime. That being the scope of the present measure, it would not be desirable to restrict its operation in the manner proposed by the Amendment; and our reason for objecting to the words is that they would not be in accordance with the principle of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Surely the argument of
  1772
  the hon. and learned Attorney General is an extraordinary one. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean to say that the Government have left out this most important restriction and limitation because it would have been inconvenient and cumbersome to insert three words? A more ludicrous argument could not be imagined. The real explanation is that the Government have left out the words because this is not a Bill for the prevention of crime and outrage, but because it is a Bill for the suppression of political combinations in Ireland; and the attitude of the Government, with reference to this Amendment, is one of the many illustrations with which they furnish us of their real object. We have already tested them by various Amendments; and this Amendment is only a test the more. We say that if your Bill is really aimed at crime and outrage, you should put into it the restriction which was in the Bill of 1882; and if you do not introduce the words, it is one more proof, as I have said, that the Bill is aimed at political combinations, and not at crime and outrage.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. and learned Attorney General has said that the Government do not want to encumber the Bill with words which might lead to its further enlargement. These words would cover conviction for crime and outrage; and it must be that, in rejecting thorn, the Government want the Bill for something besides the prevention of crime and outrage—there can be no other reason for not accepting the Amendment. If they want to put down lawful agitation, it is necessary that they should leave out these words; but if they only want to prevent crime and outrage, the word "prevention" would cover everything. I trust the Government will not resist words which, if inserted, will limit the Bill to the prevention of crime and outrage, and which, if left out, will show that the Government only desire to use the clause as a means for putting down political combination. If the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) will permit me, I would move to insert, after the word "prevention," "and punishment," so as to make the clause run, "for the prevention and punishment of crime and outrage," so as to throw upon the Government the responsibility of rejecting the words.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert after "prevention" the words" and punishment."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not see how we can accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman if these words are inserted. It is not possible to catalogue all the proper motives which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to put this section in force.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The only argument used against this Amendment was that it did not go far enough. We have now met that argument, and I trust we shall be allowed to amend the Amendment in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. When that is done, I can see no possible ground on which the Government should refuse to accept it. If they do not accept the Amendment in its then form, it is clear that they must be influenced by other motives than the prevention and punishment of crime.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I ask the Government to accept the Amendment last proposed without a Division, so as to give us an opportunity of discussing the whole Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, to insert, after "necessary," the words "for the prevention and punishment of crime and outrage."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We have now the whole Amendment before us, and if the Government do not intend to add anything to the statement of the Attorney General I presume we must go on with the discussion. The attitude taken up by the Government upon this Amendment will and ought to regulate our action not only upon this, but every succeeding Amendment proposed to the Bill. I say this because an appeal was made to us by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to-day to confine our Amendments to matters of principle. In the acceptance of such a proposal there is something implied—namely, that we should be met by the Government with something like a disposition to accept an Amendment of some kind to the clause; but I am bound to say that if we are met by the Government with an obsti-
  1774
  nate resistance to every Amendment, good, bad, and indifferent, we shall gain nothing by our concession. We test the Government by this Amendment, and if they refuse it, then. I say that we shall be driven to the conclusion that the Government intend to stand by every word of the Bill. If that is so, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the use of our curtailing discussion—whore will be the advantage of making this concession, if our doing so is to have the effect of leaving the Bill precisely where it was when we started? So much with regard to the attitude which we shall take up. I now come to the Amendment before the Committee, and upon this subject I may say that I have never seen a man more completely hoisted with his own petard than the hon. and learned Attorney General. He says that he does not object to the principle of the Amendment, but he objects to the Amendment because it is not sufficiently enlarged. Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton enlarges the Amendment, and the moment he does so the hon. and learned Attorney General changes his mind.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I pointed out that we could not catalogue all the proper motives which might induce the Lord Lieutenant to put the section in force, and I expressly stated this, not by way of justification to ourselves, but in answer to the statement of the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I say that we are just where we were before, unless we get this Amendment agreed to. That is what the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman have made absolutely clear. There are only three things which the Executive can do with regard to crime; they can prevent it; they can detect it; and they can punish it; and I defy the metaphysical genius of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to name any condition of being or ontology—which, I believe, is the word in favour just now in Scotland—with regard to crime that is not included within the terms "prevention," "detection," and "punishment." That being so, I suggest that the Amendment should be again amended by putting in the words "and punishment," and I say that these terms finally exhaust the whole category in respect of crime and outrage, and that if the Government

  1775
  will not accept the Amendment in that form it is because they want to extend the Bill beyond those limits. I say that we on these Benches are perfectly ready to be judged with regard to the Amendments we have proposed to this Bill, and that the Government will also be judged by the country for their refusals to accept them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) originally, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who amended it, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who proposes to amend it still further, have all charged the Government with a sinister motive in not following the precise words of the Act of 1882. The particular charge is that the Government are aiming at political combinations instead of the detection and punishment of crime. But this is an accusation which we have always denied, and still deny. This section is only to enable the Lord Lieutenant to set in motion the other clauses of the Bill. The proper way would be to amend the clauses which define the offences, and not the clause for setting in motion the machinery directed against crime and outrage; but we believe that the Amendment, as proposed to be amended, would not have the effect of limiting in the slightest degree the operation of any other clause in the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Then why do you not accept it?
  MR. A.J.BALFOUR: That is exactly what we mean to do.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "prevention" insert the word "detection."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question, "That the word be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, in page 4, line 32, after "necessary" insert, "for the prevention, detection, and punishment of crime and outrage."
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Amendment. I merely wish to say that I do not follow the reasoning of the hon. and learned Attorney General in thinking
  1776
  that it is possible to punish crime without detecting it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 34, after the word "force," to insert the words "for the period of six months or such lesser period as may be stated in such Proclamation."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): It is my duty to state that, as far as the Government are concerned, they must oppose this Amendment, as well as all others upon the Paper which have for their object the limitation of the period during which Proclamations shall continue. Whatever period was inserted, it might be that in one case it would be too long and in another too short for the necessities of the case. The provision of our Bill is that the Proclamation may be revoked at any time. In the case of former Proclamations it is within my own knowledge, and that of many hon. Members of this House, that they have been revoked at widely different periods; I have known Proclamations revoked after 14 days, after a month, after three months, and even after a period of years. I cannot, therefore, see what could be gained by adopting the Amendment proposed, or in other similar Amendments which contain nothing that would prevent the Lord Lieutenant issuing a new Proclamation immediately upon the withdrawal of the former. Under these circumstances we cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland states that his objection applies not only to this Amendment, but to every Amendment upon the Paper which proposes to limit the period during which the Proclamation is to run. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not turned to the next page, because he would see there a reference to the expiry of Proclamations. If there is no date mentioned for the expiry, it is obvious that the period of Proclamation cannot expire at all. We know that it is impossible to fix the date of expiry absolutely; but there would be nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant from proclaiming a

  1777
  district afresh on the eve of expiry, and the object of the Amendment is to compel the Lord Lieutenant to look into the matter and discover what the true state of the district may be. That we consider to be only a reasonable provision. The fact that the Proclamation depends upon the existence of crime and outrage makes this Amendment all the more reasonable. We know that the strongest pressure will be brought to bear by rack-renting landlords and broken-down country gentlemen upon the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland to keep these Proclamations in force in order that they may get rid of those whom they consider to be objectionable neighbours. Therefore it is that we want to make the Lord Lieutenant responsible; we want to make his responsibility real, and to give him an opportunity of exercising those great abilities which he is supposed by some, although not by us, to possess.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not seem to understand the object we have in supporting this Amendment. The complaint is, that this is a Coercion Act which is to be ever lasting. All former Coercion Acts were Acts which expired at a certain date, and the Proclamation necessarily terminated with the Acts themselves: and not only was that the case, but the rules and regulations were such as to afford a hope that the Proclamations would terminate when the causes which had brought them about had ceased. The case here is quite different, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if the necessity for the Proclamation continues after the time named in this Amendment, there will still remain a largo amount of unused force in the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council, which can be exercised in re-proclaiming the district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objects that the time named may be too long or too short; but we think, on the other hand, that the period stated would prove to be neither the one nor the other. Everyone who has had any experience in these matters will see that it is not a light thing to subject men for an undefined period to what is, as a matter of fact, equivalent to control by court martial. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the
  1778
  observation of the learned Judge who said that a certain trial in Ireland represented to his mind the trial of a Kaffir at the Cape by a jury of Dutch Boers. These are the words of a Judge who knows the force of language; and I repeat that it is no light matter that a clause of this kind should be irrevocable. We have known the case of a district remaining under Proclamation until it was forgotten; and there have been others in which the liberties of the people have been suspended for indefinite periods, and these are among the reasons why we urge upon the Government the acceptance of the present Amendment.
  MR. WARMINGTON: This Amendment, in the first place, has been proposed to show that there shall be a period for the expiring of an ordinary as well as a special Proclamation, and how it shall take place; another object is to make it obligatory on the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers to reconsider the Proclamation periodically. I think it is not too much to ask that the Officers of the Crown should periodically consider whether or not a Proclamation should be renewed?
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: In connection with the Coercion Act of 1882, there was a promise given by the late Mr. Forster that each individual case should be inquired into every three months. Now, Mr. Forster was a very stern man; but there were good-natured points in his disposition, and he held, among other things, that no Coercion Act should be passed for an unlimited time, and further, as I have said, that an investigation should take place into individual cases. If after three months investigation was regarded then as necessary, how much more necessary is it now that some limit should be put to the time during which the liberties of the people of Ireland are at the mercy of the Crown Prosecutor? Mr. Forster considered it unwise that a Government should have the powers of a Coercion Act to be hung like a sword over the people, and taken down to be used according to the disposition of any official. It is clear from this that Mr. Forster had some conscience left; but the present Government have none left whatever. I trust the conduct of Mr. Forster will not be lost upon the Government on the present occasion, although,

  1779
  up to the present time, they have simply turned their back on every Amendment which has come from this side of the House. When they accepted the last Amendment they were on the horns of a dilemma, and there was no escape for them; but now they say that they will not accept an Amendment of this reasonable and necessary character, although it has a very strong precedent in its favour—namely, that a similar proposal was adopted by Mr. Forster. For that reason, although I do not expect it, I still hope they may be induced to accept the words of limitation which my hon. Friend proposes.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to point out that the Bill refers to the expiring of the Proclamation, and I have to ask how, if there is to be no termination, any Proclamation can be said to expire?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not think it necessary to answer the arguments of my hon. Friend. If a Proclamation be not limited in duration, what is the meaning of the words in the next clause? I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation rather tells against his own position, because I understand him to say that he contemplates that these Proclamations should be limited, not in the words of the Proclamations, but in respect of the necessity for them. If that be so, I suggest that six months is not an unreasonable period to propose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to conceive that circumstances might arise in which a Proclamation should continue for an unlimited time; but I should be sorry to think that such a state of crime and outrage was about to last for ever in Ireland as would make it necessary to continue in existence such an Act as this, although I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Party credit for doing all they can to increase crime and outrage there. But if there be in Ireland any considerable amount of crime and outrage, or if the Government succeeds in bringing about such a condition of things, I do not think that it will last for ever; and, therefore, I do not see why they should take the precaution of making the Act everlasting. The Government say that we are limiting the period of Proclamation, but that
  1780
  we do not, at the same time, give any protection to the locality against re-Proclamation. We are, of course, not so ignorant as to suppose that the Proclamation could not be renewed by the Lord Lieutenant; but we want to secure that a district shall not be proclaimed for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. I was going to refer to the Act of 1882, but in that matter the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) has anticipated me, and it will not be necessary for me now to do so. I wish, however, to point out that the limitation of the period to three months in the Act of 1882 was not that dead letter which the right hon. Gentleman seems to imply would be the result of such a limitation in the Bill. It is true that, under Mr. Forster's Bill, a prisoner was not bound to be released at the expiration of three months; but, at the same time, by this clause the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was specially directed to the case of an individual whoso release was, as a matter of fact, very often secured. That release was, I am sure, largely due to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was compelled by the words of the Statute to give personal attention to the circumstances, and so reconsider the imprisonment of individuals. What we ask is that the same period for review should be given in the case of localities as in the former case was given to individuals; and if that is not conceded, it is clear to us that the Government want to make this Act still more merciless than the former.
  MR. CHANCE: The position taken up by the Government is that, having proclaimed a district because there exists a certain amount of crime and outrage, they mean to continue that state of things after every vestige of crime and outrage has disappeared. We charge them with doing that purely for political purposes.
  DR. COMMINS: I cannot see that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consistent with the provisions of the Bill. He says that he would not have it understood that these Proclamations are to be for an indefinite period. But if that is so, why is it not stated in the Bill? Why not say that the Proclamations shall remain in force for such time as the Government shall think fit. I can see no objection

  1781
  to that unless they want to take greater powers than they wish the public to know of. There is a matter in connection with this subject which I think has not been touched upon, and which requires attention. Proclamations in Ireland are always attended with consequences other than the mere prosecution of offenders; they are followed by the billeting of an enormous force of police which have to be supported by the localities. This clause, therefore, gives the Government power of taxing for an unlimited period a proclaimed district. I cannot see any reason why the Proclamation should not be limited in respect of duration, just as it is limited in respect of area; and, therefore, in view of these indefinite powers I think the Amendment a very reasonable one, and shall give it my support.
  MR. O'DOHEETY: I ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether he will not agree to there being supervision every three months, leaving the Proclamation in force unless it be withdrawn? That would simply have the effect of calling attention to the actual state of affairs.
  MR. HOLMES: I must point out to the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government do consider that the provisions of the Act of 1881 would not be applicable to the present case. I have already explained to the Committee that the Government cannot accept any Amendment having for its object to limit the term of Proclamation.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland seems to forget that this is a permanent Act. Surely, having regard to that fact, and that so much has been made of the argument by Gentlemen opposite, we are entitled to ask that this point, with reference to the revision of Proclamations, shall be conceded. It is a very difficult thing to get a Proclamation withdrawn in Ireland. There are always 100 persons ready and eager that a district should be proclaimed; but there are very few who are ready to come forward and urge that the Proclamation should be withdrawn. That being so, we want some limit to be placed on the act of Proclamation; we propose that there should be a limit of time, and that when the period is drawing to a close it should be the duty of the Lord Lieu-
  1782
  tenant to review the facts and circumstances relating to the district, and decide judicially whether or not the Proclamation shall remain in force. If there is anything in the contention of the Government that the limitation is of no use because we make no provision against renewal, I say that we cast on the officials in Ireland the responsibility and duty of periodically renewing the circumstances, and considering whether they warrant the continuance in force of the Proclamation. We know from the fact that no persons will take the trouble to examine the circumstances that a Proclamation may continue in force for an unlimited period, and unless our Amendment is accepted there will be nothing in the Bill to compel the officials in Ireland to examine into the necessity of continuing or withdrawing the Proclamation. That being the case, we know perfectly well that a Proclamation, being once issued, will remain upon a district, so far as the present Government are concerned, without anything being done for its removal.
  THE LOED MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T, D. SULLIVAN): I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) is well worthy of the attention of the Government. It takes from their hands no power whatsoever, and it simply provides that there shall be a periodical review of the circumstances of these Proclamations. I think it most desirable that this proposal should be accepted for the purpose of casting upon the officials in Ireland the duty of reconsidering the various Proclamations and, in case they see reason for it, withdrawing them. But from another point of view I think the suggestion an admirable one, inasmuch as it would have a good effect upon the proclaimed districts. I believe that if it were known that the state of a district would be brought under consideration at the Castle, it would be an inducement to the people of the district to present a better record. On the other hand, if no such provision is made, there would be no inducement to bring about an improved state of affairs. I cannot see that the position of the Government will be in any respect weakened by the introduction of the words proposed by my hon. Friend, nor can I see anything in favour of their opposition but the mulish obstinacy they

  1783
  have shown in refusing all Amendments from this side of the House.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I agree with my hon. Friend that unless you accept this Amendment it will be a matter of indifference to the people of the district whether crime exists there or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has, in answer to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), tried to insinuate that the punishments under this Act would not be so great as under the Act of 1882; but we say that in that respect the two Acts cannot be compared for a moment, and that this Act curtails the liberties of the people more than any former Act. From the position taken up by the Government we can only conclude that they intend these Proclamations to be permanent.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 145: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 227.) [8.45 P. M..]
  DR. COMMINS: I have an Amendment in line 34, to leave out from "Ireland" to "Proclamation" in line 35, and to insert "from a day not earlier than seven days from the date of such Proclamation." My object is to give reasonable notice of the proclamation of the districts for the purposes of the provisions of this Bill to persons who may be interested.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  DR. COMMINS: The clause as it stands is objectionable from two points of view, because it leaves you in doubt when the Proclamation will come into force, because it says "within any specified part of Ireland as from the date of the Proclamation." Well, we know that there is no division of a day in law; and, supposing the Proclamation is issued on the "13th June," that may mean any time of the day or night of the 13th June. The Proclamation may be issued at 10 minutes to 12 o'clock at night, and a person who may have done some act quite innocently, such as attending a meeting at 5 o'clock in the morning, 17 or 18 hours previously, may be proceeded against, prosecuted, and found guilty
  1784
  under the procedure sections of this Act, owing to the framing of this clause. This section is in reality, owing to the way in which it is worded, retrospective to the extent of 24 hours. That is a serious objection to the clause as it stands, as it is quite open to that interpretation. There is another interpretation that may be put upon it, and one quite as objectionable, and that is that the Proclamation will issue after the application of the Act. It does not exactly say it here—but it does not say the contrary in such a definite way as to preclude a person wishing to put that construction upon it from doing so. I suppose the construction is that the Act, if passed on the 14th, would come into operation on the 15th and that the Proclamation may be issued on the 15th; but we know from previous experience how unfair it is to allow a Proclamation to issue at a period when it is too late to take precautions against it, or to avoid violating the particular provisions promulgated by that Proclamation. That is a thing we have constantly experienced in Ireland; it has happened hundreds of times. Say a meeting is called at a certain place on a given day. Placards announcing that meeting may have been out on the hoardings and on the roadsides for a week or a fortnight—I know a case whore they have been out for a fortnight. People may come to that meeting from 20 miles round, but at half-past 11 o'clock at night on the day preceding that fixed for holding the meeting a notice may have been posted up proclaiming the meeting. That was done in the case I refer to, and the notice was handed to the chairman of the meeting in my presence. Not only has that occurred in my own experience, but we know that it has been done over and over again in Ireland. Proclamations are issued up to within a very short time of the hour at which the meetings are to be held, and people who come miles and miles to attend these meetings are liable to criminal prosecution under these Proclamations, although they were entirely ignorant that what they were about to do was illegal. I cannot think that the Government intended to render this sort of thing possible under this Bill. It has been so often complained of in Ireland, not only with regard to the present Government, but also with regard too the Governments,

  1785
  that I should have thought they would have taken measures to prevent its recurrence in connection with this Act. I am bound to hold that the Government are quite aware that this sort of thing is done. They must know the mischief they have brought about from time to time, and the danger to which it exposes the community, to riot and disorder. They must know that the Proclamations themselves have been the cause of serious disturbances—they must know that on many occasions it has been nothing less than sheer good luck which has prevented the breaking out of serious riot and disorder as the result of these Proclamations themselves. In many cases, so far from the Proclamations being a means of preserving law and order, and preserving the peace, they have been the very reverse. The Amendment I propose would prevent any of these dangers occurring. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in asking that some little notice should be given to the persons interested. At all events, let there be a word before a blow is struck. A week's notice is little enough. It might be said that dangers might arise within these seven days that I ask for. It may be said that a conspiracy may be growing up in a neighbourhood, or that some evictions like those at Bodyke may be coming on, and that the Executive must not be limited in point of time. It may be said—"In many eases it will be necessary to act immediately, and the mischief may be done before the seven days you ask for has expired." Well, there is nothing in that case. In the cases of evictions which bring about disturbances, such as those at Bodyke, our experience tells us that it is not likely that breaches of the peace are brought about in a day. Notice of evictions is given months before. It takes 14 or 15 days, even when an eviction motion is not defended, before a decree can be issued or a judgment obtained; and the Government will, therefore, have not one week, but several weeks' notice of the fact that there is going to be a battue of peasants at an eviction such as occurred at Bodyke or Glenbeigh. The Government will have plenty of time to issue their notice of Proclamation, in order to give fair intimation to the people. And the same thing applies to other matters which are made the
  1786
  subject of Proclamation. It may be said that there may be some secret combinations going on, and that it is necessary for the Government to have power to act immediately they find it out; but surely the Government find out these combinations rapidly enough. It is hard to draw a distinction between the office in Printing House Square and Her Majesty's Treasury, and it is hard to see that they are not identified with each other, and that the knowledge and suspicion of the one is not the knowledge and suspicion of the other. We know that there is not the slightest conspiracy of any kind in Ireland that The Times newspaper is not acquainted with. Surely The Times newspaper having this knowledge will not be so unpatriotic as not to communicate what they know to the Treasury. We know perfectly well that The Times newspaper does not keep secret anything from the Treasury, and that the Treasury does not keep anything secret from The Times. If there is anything in the reports which reach them about combinations, they know more about the matter than anyone else—they having moans of knowing more about these things than anyone else that I know. Therefore, it would be arguing the utmost incapacity on the part of the Government if you were to say that the Government could not know anything about a conspiracy until it was on the eve of breaking out. I utterly repudiate the notion that they would not know, from their own means of information, what the combinations which exist in Ireland are, or when they are going to take place. I say give the people some notice of what is going to be done before they are brought under the provisions of this Act by the sudden springing of this Proclamation upon them. Give a word before a blow. Do not act like the treacherous Red Indian who springs upon his enemy from behind a hedge. Do not enact a retrospective law of this kind. I move the Amendment which stands in my name, and though I have not much hope of its being accepted, I put it down with some confidence that the arguments I have submitted in support of it will not be very easily disposed of.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 34, leave out from "Ireland" to "Proclamation" in line 35, and insert "from a day not earlier than seven days

  1787
  from the date of such Proclamation."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the effect of his own Amendment—at any rate, if he has, he has very wisely refrained from acknowledging it to the Committee. His argument might have been a very good one as applied to the Crimes Bill of 1882; but there is no provision in the present measure as to proclaiming meetings with a certain penalty to persons who attend them. His principal argument appears to me to amount to this—that a Proclamation can be issued declaring a particular meeting, which had been called, illegal immediately before the hour fixed for that meeting to take place, supposing that the result of that would be that those persons attending the meeting could be subjected to punishment. He says it would be unfair that a Proclamation should be sprung upon such people when they had already started from their homes for the purpose of attending the meeting; and he suggests that the result, in all likelihood, would be a collision between such people and the police authorities. Well, I say that would have been a good proposal, or, at any rate, would have had some merit in it if made in connection with the Bill of 1882; but we have no provision in this Bill with regard to meetings taking place after proclamation rendering the parties attending such meetings subject to penalties. Let us see what the effect of the Amendment would be. The 1st clause of the Bill enables secret investigations to take place, the 2nd clause deals with the decision of cases summarily, and the 4th has reference to the change of the place of trial. Well, supposing evidence was required at a secret investigation, or suppose the attendance of witnesses was required in order that the Summary Jurisdiction Clause might be put into force, or suppose that the place of trial is changed and witnesses are required to come forward, and there is strong reason to believe that the required evidence cannot be obtained voluntarily by reason of the witnesses being intimidated, if this Amendment were accepted, and
  1788
  those seven days' interval were allowed, we may very naturally conclude that those witnesses who are withholding evidence by reason of sympathy with the crime, or by reason of intimidation, will take the earliest opportunity of putting themselves beyond the reach of the magistrates. So that these seven days would in reality be a kind of close time during which these people could escape the necessity of giving evidence. The Amendment would in this way destroy the value of the first provision of the Bill. Take the second provision, and suppose certain turbulence existed in a district, and that for the purpose of putting it down in an effective way it is necessary to resort to the application of summary jurisdiction, it is clear that these seven days' notice which would be required under the Amendment would be, in the highest degree, antagonistic to the operation of that clause. In the same way, as regards the 3rd clause which refers to the order for a special jury, and the 4th clause, which deals with the change of venue, where you have a person returned for trial, and where it is necessary in order to have a fair trial that you should have this clause put into operation, it will be seen that if this Amendment were adopted; might cause a delay which would prevent the trial taking place at the Assizes then being held in the town to which the venue had been changed. The delay might render it absolutely necessary to try the prisoner without change of venue and without appeal to a special jury. It is for the purpose of avoiding these inconveniences and difficulties that the Government are compelled to oppose this Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I deny that it follows that, in order to make the present clause effective, we must negative the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Roscommon (Dr. Commins). I do say that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, in giving the answer he has done, has limited himself to arguing the matter in an altogether technical manner. He will not deny that my hon. Friend put a case for his Amendment in the matter of the proclamation of meetings, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself saw the force of the argument founded upon that illustration, because he took it upon himself to

  1789
  deny that the Bill would have any relation to such a case. But he will not assert that there is not a clause in the second part of this Bill dealing with unlawful assemblies, nor will he attempt to deny that that may in certain cases be made use of for the purpose of prosecuting parties connected with meetings, and of course, indirectly, for the purpose of suppressing meetings. If that be so, it is disingenuous to say that the case which my hon. Friend has put—namely, the case of a meeting proclaimed suddenly and without notice—would be a case which could not occur under this Bill. To me it is perfectly plain that the contingency mentioned by my hon. Friend is quite possible. It is plain that the Government, under this Bill, may prosecute parties who have taken part in what they are pleased to call unlawful assemblies, and with that power in their hands—namely, the power of preventing the holding of meetings, and of dispersing meetings which they allege to be illegal—having that power in their hands, they will, as a result of it, disperse meetings which otherwise they would not be led to interfere with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this Bill does not extend that far. He may be right in regard to form, perhaps; but in substance it does, because meetings which the Government would otherwise have no chance of deciding to be illegal, they will be able under the provisions of this Bill to get juries and magistrates to pronounce upon as illegal. Therefore, though no new offence in this matter of public meetings is set up by this clause, yet, in truth and in fact, the class of meetings which it will be in the power of the Government to disperse will be largely increased in consequence of the setting up of the new tribunal by the Bill. If that be so—and I think that no one can deny it—I do say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely avoided the real point raised by this Amendment. It is idle to say that this Bill does not give power to the Government to suppress meetings. We do not say that it does in all cases directly—though in the subsequent clause in certain cases that is expressly provided for, although that point is not material. We say that consequent on Section 2 of this Bill the effect of this
  1790
  clause without the Amendment would be to largely increase the danger of having meetings arbitrarily put a stop to by the Executive. The only really effective reply the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to give was where he pointed out certain imaginary effects of the Amendment—certain effects that he imagined would ensue in connection with Section 1. He says that in connection with Section 1, if you accept the Amendment and provide that the Proclamation is not to come into force until a week after it is issued, that the people whom it may be necessary to call up as witnesses before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction will take advantage of the interval to make themselves scarce, and in that way to defeat the object of the Bill. Does he think that there are witnesses in any district who apprehend that the Government are going to call upon them to give evidence, who, if they do not desire to be examined, will wait the passing of this Bill to be placed in the witness box? Does he think these witnesses will not leave upon the notice they have already got without waiting the passage of this Bill? If these witnesses are on the look out for the action of the Government, are apprehensive that the Government will make use of any extraordinary power which may be given to them under this Bill to take them up and examine them, why, of course, they will leave the country before ever the Bill becomes law, and the close time which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to as a result of allowing this seven days' interval will be, for their purposes, absolutely unnecessary. The close time in their case would be the interval between the present moment and the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That an additional mischief would be done by giving the people an additional seven days I take leave to deny. I say the suggestion is absurd. It is absurd to suppose that men who are keen enough and sharp enough to catch at a seven days' interval will not be keen enough to catch at the interval between this and the passing of the Bill. That being so, the only effective argument by which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has endeavoured to resist this Amendment falls to the ground.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: I am sorry that the Amendment we have just disposed of was not accepted by the Government; but since the Government will not accept the principle one way I will see if they will accept it in another. I would move to omit the words "or any later date specified in the Proclamation." Since the Proclamation can only now be issued where outrage and crime is apprehended, it is unreasonable to suppose that a later date would be specified in the Proclamation for putting an end to it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 35, to leave out "or any later date specified in the Proclamation."—(Mr. Chance.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I think that is a very reasonable proposition.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, after "mentioned," to insert—
  "Any such Proclamation shall he deemed to have expired if an Address is presented to Her Majesty, by either House of Parliament, praying that such Proclamation shall not continue in force."
  Now, Sir, the object of that Amendment is this. It deals in one sense with what I may call the perpetuity of this Act. We have taken exception to this measure on the ground that there is no period put in for its termination, and the argument that has been used in favour of a Coercion Bill not being temporary is that from time to time the attention of Parliament is drawn to the question of the continuance of such a measure. The precedent that I have followed in preparing this Amendment is one that the Government have followed in the next clause. In Clause 6 the Government have provided that—
  "Any such special Proclamation shall he deemed to have expired if within a period of fourteen days after the same has been laid he-fore Parliament an Address is presented to Her Majesty, by either House of Parliament, praying that such special Proclamation shall not continue in force."
  What I am seeking to do by this Amend-
  1792
  ment, which I hope the Government will accept, is to require that the Proclamation mentioned in this clause, which is practically the putting in force of the Act with the exception of the dangerous association part of it, shall be subject to the veto of either House of Parliament. That, if adopted, will secure to either House of Parliament constant control over the working of this Act. It will prevent a difficulty which we have pointed out from time to time in the course of this discussion—namely, the difficulty in the way of repealing the Act. If it were not for some provision of this kind, though the House of Commons might be of opinion that this Act should cease to be in force, yet "another place" might have to be consulted before it could be repealed. No Act of this kind has ever before been made perpetual. Previous Acts have either come to an end at the expiration of a specified time and have not been renewed, or, if they have been renewed, on their renewal Parliament has had an opportunity of pronouncing a definite opinion upon them. What I want to effect by my Amendment is that either House of Parliament should have the power of saying that the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant, which deals with the offences specified in the preceding clauses, shall expire. Having admitted that principle in reference to the special Proclamation for putting in force the enactments of the Act relating to dangerous associations, I hope the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will not decline to accept it as applied to this clause. If the principle is good for the next clause it surely is good for this. If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I should be prepared to alter the terms of it, so as to put it on all fours with the principle of Sub-section 3 of Clause 6. The acceptance of this Amendment will enable Parliament to put an end to the application of the Act without being compelled to resort to the measure of disturbing the whole administrative system of the country and turning the Government out of Office. I propose that the House should at any time have an opportunity of saying that this Proclamation shall expire.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 39, after "mentioned," insert—"Any such Proclamation shall he deemed to

  1793
  have expired if an Address is presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament, praying that such Proclamation shall not continue in force."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOMES): I need hardly say that in framing this clause in the terms in which it has been framed there was no wish to withdraw from Parliament the power it has undoubtedly always exercised with regard to matters of this kind. The Government must be in accord with the feeling of Parliament in regard to these things, otherwise it will not be allowed to retain its position. However, the right hon. Gentleman has advanced cogent reasons for the acceptance of the Amendment of which he has given Notice. Though we do not think that it does materially alter, in the direction the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, the clause as approved by us, yet as it is conceived by him, and as it may be conceived by others, that the Amendment will give a greater safeguard, we are prepared to concede the point and accept the Amendment.
  MR. DILLON: I have given Notice of an Amendment which is similar to Sub-sections 2, 3, and 4 in Clause 0, with slight verbal alterations, with the intention of providing that a copy of every Proclamation issued under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within seven days after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not then, within seven days after the next meeting of Parliament. I also propose that—
  "Whenever any Proclamation is issued under this section, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within twenty days, such special Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired at the end of a week from the date thereof, unless during that week Parliament shall be summoned to meet within twenty days from the date of the summons; and when a Proclamation has been allowed to lapse in the manner above specified the district to which it applied shall not be proclaimed during the ensuing six months without the consent of Parliament."
  THE CHAIRMAN: As a point of Order, I wish to say that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has not been put; if it is put, it will be added to the
  1794
  clause; and the object which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) seeks to obtain in bringing forward his Amendment can be secured by inserting further sub-sections after the 1st subsection of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, leaving out the last of the three, or moving it with Subsection 1.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. Member for East Mayo can move his Amendment.
  MR. DILLON: The best course for me to adopt will be to move only two sub-sections, omitting Sub - section 3. The Amendment which I will now move will read as follows:—
  "A copy of every Proclamation issued under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within seven days after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within seven days after the next meeting of Parliament.
  "Whenever any Proclamation is issued under this section, if Parliament be then seperated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within twenty days, such special Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired at the end of a week from the date thereof, unless during that week Parliament shall be summoned to meet within twenty days from the date of the summons; and when a Proclamation has been allowed to lapse in the manner above specified, the district to which it applied shall not be proclaimed during the ensuing six months without the consent of Parliament."
  I propose to add, if Section 6 be retained, that when a Proclamation has been allowed to lapse in the manner there specified the district to which it applied shall not be proclaimed in the ensuing six months without the consent of Parliament. I do not see why the same safeguards that are applied in the case of what are called special Proclamations under this Act should not also be applied to the ordinary Proclamations under this Act. The powers that are given to the Lord Lieutenant for enforcing the ordinary powers under this Act are exceedingly great. Inasmuch as it is proposed by this Act, and as it is the ordinary course of Parliament to deprive the people of Ireland of all power of criticizing the government of their own country, for that is what the policy of the Government means, the least we can claim is this, that wherever a large district or section of country is placed under this oppressive legislation

  1795
  we should have an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government in keeping it under that system. I do not see how the Government can possibly deny us that opportunity. If the theories and declarations of those who support the Union were honestly carried into effect the same reasonable government would exist in Ireland as exists in England; but we know very well, and it is useless to repeat it, because it has been said over and over again, that no such thing exists, or is likely to exist, there. All I would ask in the Amendment I am now proposing is that at least we may have the liberty, and that that liberty shall be secured to us, of criticizing and drawing attention to the action of the Government whenever they place a large section of the population of Ireland under the provisions of this Act. Now, with regard to the Amendment that the Government have just accepted, I desire to point out that it does not afford to us any security—any real security. It is an improvement, so far as it goes, which to my mind is of an exceedingly slender character. It does not afford to us any security whatever that what seems to be legitimate criticism can always be applied in the case of any fresh Proclamation under this Act—
  "Any such special Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired if an Address is presented to Her Majesty by either House of Parliament, praying that such special Proclamation shall not continue in force."
  What does that amount to? It amounts to this, that the Front Opposition Bench may, after a Proclamation has been for a long time in existence, obtain an opportunity of moving that it be withdrawn. That, as I say, will only be when the Proclamation has been a long time in existence. In my opinion, it will never occur, because the pressure of Irish Business is already very great; and I doubt whether the Government, judging from the autocratic spirit in which they treat us and our demands, will ever be able to find time for such a thing as the discussion of these Proclamations. Even if they do, and there is a chance that the Government would allow a debate upon such a matter to Members of this House, it is manifest that no such opportunity will be afforded to the Irish Members. We should be perfectly and entirely powerless to make any Motion of that kind. How are we
  1796
  to get an opportunity to move a Motion? We must obtain the permission of the Government in order to do so; and we know well enough from past experience that they are far from anxious to give permission for us to make a Motion of that kind. They have always been opposed to granting an opportunity for making such a Motion, and therefore I am afraid that I have very good grounds for believing that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, though no doubt well intentioned, will, in the end, prove to be a barren Amendment, for the reasons I have explained, and that we shall never have an opportunity of moving such an Address to Her Majesty at all. What I desire to secure by the Amendment I move is, that there shall be an opportunity—a real bonâ fide opportunity—conferred upon our Party in this House without the consent of the Government of criticizing every proclamation of a district in Ireland. I am bound to say that I do not think this is in the least degree an unreasonable proposal. If a large portion of the Irish people are to be placed under the provisions of this Act, a few hours spent in criticism when the Proclamations are issued will not be wasted. You have the cloture now, and can put a stop to discussions of this kind when you like. You can urge no substantial objection to what we claim. The theory of the Government, the idea of the Union seems to be that an Irish Member should have the smallest influence on any matter that is Irish. That is what it amounts to, and if you deny me this Amendment, it is equivalent to saying that we are not to be allowed even to criticize, except in some of the roundabout ways which the well-known ingenuity of Irish Members discovers—that we are not be permitted to criticize the action of the Executive Government in the administration of this unusual and oppressive Bill in Ireland. If that is to be the determination of the Government, and if they have made up their minds to refuse this Amendment, all I can say is, that they will have robbed themselves of all right or shadow of justification of complaint if the ingenuity of Irish Members branches out in new directions. They have had a fair example in the past of what the result of putting the screw too hard on the Irish Members is, and I

  1797
  warn them that every turn that they give the screw will be a torture to themselves more and more. If they meet us fairly, we will meet them fairly; but if they meet us unfairly, we will meet them unfairly in every way we possibly can. If they treat us unfairly, it will be at the cost of their own comfort, and at the cost of a dignified method of carrying on the Business of this House. They will find that the dignity of this House will not be supported by harshly refusing to us that ordinary and reasonable justice which we ask of them. If they seek to prevent us from legitimately criticizing the administration of this abominable Act in Ireland, we shall endeavour in our own peculiar way to bring home to them the inconveniences that they are bringing home to us.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of foregoing Amendment, to insert—A copy of every Proclamation issued under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within seven days after the making thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within seven days after the next meeting of Parliament.
  "Whenever any Proclamation is issued under this section, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within twenty days, such special Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired at the end of a week from the date thereof, unless during that week Parliament shall be summoned to meet within twenty days from the date of the summons; and when a Proclamation has been allowed to lapse in the manner above specified, the district to which it applied shall not be proclaimed during the ensuing six months without the consent of Parliament."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not intend to inquire as to what are the "peculiar ways" that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Different persons may have different opinions as to that. All I can say on the part of Her Majesty's Government is, that I think we should not be justified, in deference to a threat of that kind——
  MR. DILLON: I rise to Order. I desire to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using orderly language in imputing such a statement to me? I used no threat. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] No; I used no threat; and to say that I did, is unjustly to impute to me a course which I did not take. I did not use the words in the sense of a
  1798
  threat; but I mentioned what would be the result of the action of the Government.
  MR. HOLMES: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he and his Friends would try to oppose the Government in their own peculiar way. My own observation was that the Government would not be justified, in deference to a threat of that kind—and I conceive it to be a threat—to accept an Amendment which, on considering it on its merits, we should reject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, in moving the Amendment we acceded to, stated that he would not ask the Government to accept consequential Amendments. He said that having regard to the character of the Proclamations, it might not be convenient to the Government to accede to Amendments of that kind. The Proclamation under the 6th section is, we admit, a peculiar Proclamation for which there is no precedent, and with regard to that it is intended to give Parliament control over it; therefore we have provided in reference to that section that if Parliament be not assembled at the time the Proclamation is made, but be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within 20 days, such special Proclamation should be deemed to have expired at the end of a week from the date thereof, unless during that week Parliament shall be summoned to meet within 20 days from the date of the summons. In that way Parliament will be given an opportunity of deciding the matter. I think that is a proper provision in reference to the special Proclamation in Clause 6; but as regards the ordinary Proclamation, it seems to us that it stands in an entirely different position. The ordinary Proclamation refers to provisions contained in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses. It refers to the preliminary inquiry by order of the Attorney General, for the application of the summary jurisdiction, the order for special jury, and the order for change of venue. Let us take a case illustrative of what might be the result, if we accepted the Amendment. In old times we generally adjourned Parliament in the early days of August, and did not meet again until an early day in February. Though in past years we have not been so happily circumstanced

  1799
  as we were formerly, and have not been able to confine our Sittings within such reasonable limits, at any rate we may expect that we shall have three or four months of the year in which we shall not be occupied with the constant Parliamentary duties which are now claiming our attention. Well, supposing Parliament adjourns at the end of August, if it is necessary in some small and limited districts to put in force some of the provisions of this Bill, or all the provisions, it may be, which are consistent with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sections, then, if this Amendment were accepted, it should be necessary before we could carry out that purpose, that Parliament should be called together. Parliament would meet on the earliest day, and, having considered the point brought before it under this Amendment, it would be again prorogued. Subsequently, the state of things which led to the Act being put in force in that small district might spread to an adjoining barony, and it might be necessary to apply the Act to that part of the country. Before that could be done, however, it would be necessary to have another meeting of Parliament and another prorogation, and we should have to act in that way in regard to every district whenever an outburst of crime took place. During the few weeks interval between one ordinary Session and another, we might have Parliament called together again and again to consider matters of this kind. If crime and intimidation exists in remote districts, the proposal is that the Act should be put in force, but that, seeing that this is merely executive action, Parliament should not be called together from time to time to pronounce an opinion upon it. In Clause 6, which deals with a special Proclamation, we give the House full control over those proceedings. As to the manner in which the powers contained in this Bill will be exercised without the safeguard the hon. Member proposes, I would point out that it is not at all likely that any Government will run the risk of incurring a Vote of Censure by acting against the general feelings of Parliament. Though Parliament might not be in a position to exercise immediate control over the action of the Government, it will always, when it meets again, have it in its power to pass a Vote of Censure; and that
  1800
  fact, I take it, is not likely to be lost sight of by the Government.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has told us that a great distinction exists between the special Proclamation under Clause 6 of this Bill and the ordinary Proclamation under Section 5. It seems to me an unfortunate thing to debate, under Section 5, the precise provision of the Proclamation under Section 6 of this measure, and I presume I must attribute to that simple fact the remarkable circumstance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not proceed to show us what was the distinction between the two Proclamations. He left this entirely in nubibus. I shall wait with considerable curiosity to hear the points of difference between the ordinary Proclamation and the Proclamation under Section 6. He tells us that usually there is not an Autumn Session, and he points out that it would be an unusual thing to put this 4th section into operation in a district when Parliament is not sitting. Well, it seems to me that the whole of this Bill has been planned for the purpose of destroying associations; and yet the case of the Government is, that while they take power to punish certain species of crime without the control of Parliament, they are perfectly willing to give Parliament control over the matter of proclaiming dangerous associations under Section 6. That might have been an argument against the permanence of the first provisions of the Act; but the Government knew that they intended to make those first provisions part of the general law of the country, and, having made them part of the general law of the country, it seems to me that they should not deal with one class of case in a different manner to the way in which they treat another. I must demur to one expression of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He told us that if certain districts were proclaimed during the Autumn Parliament, having been called together for the purpose of that Proclamation, after Parliament had been prorogued, or got rid of by some Constitutional method, there might be an outburst of crime, and that that was one of the peculiar ways with which the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had

  1801
  threatened the Government. Now, I do not desire to appeal to the Chair on a point of Order. I do not desire to appeal, and none of my hon. Friends desire to appeal, from this puny attempt at sarcasm on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, but we would desire him and his Friends—seeing that the time of the House up to Friday is supposed to be ours—to have the decency to rein his professional ardour to some extent, and not use phrases which the Chair, if they were brought under its notice, might visit with condemnation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to convey that the bringing on of outbursts of crime in the districts of Ireland is part of the tactics of Gentlemen connected with the Party to which I belong, I must characterize such insinuation as mean and wretched to the last extreme. [Laughter.] Of course, it is a laughing matter—tho right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland laughs. I recollect hearing it said, about the time of his appointment to his present position, that his great qualification to the post of the Chief Secretaryship was that he despised the Irish people so. It does not seem to me at all extraordinary that he should sit there and amuse himself by sneering and jeering at everything that falls from this side of the House. It is precisely what we expect from him. It is said that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will give full control; but what would be full control under one section will not be full control under another section. It seems to me that the argument applies quite as much to Section 5 as to Section 6. I can see no real distinction, and I fail to make out why the Government should give control—though it may be an illusory one—under one section and should deny it under another.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland began his speech by a bold statement that the Government would not yield to threats from this quarter of the House. The Government are able to use language of that kind now that they are able to command the support of the Liberal Unionists; but there was a time—and it was not so very long ago—when not a
  1802
  threat, but a mere nod, on the part of the Irish Party was enough to make the Conservatives do anything at all. They changed their whole policy at a nod; they dropped the old Coercion Bill at a nod from the Irish Leader. Lord Salisbury went in for Homo Rule at the nod or the beck of the Irish Party. I am sorry that we have again been treated to some talk about the so-called responsibility of the Irish Executive. That responsibility has again and again been shown to be the merest sham, and talk about it is only calculated to mislead and deceive. The difference between the Amendment accepted by the Government and that proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is this, that my hon. Friend's Amendment will insure a discussion in this House regarding alleged conspiracies, while the Amendment accepted by the Government will not do anything of the kind, and therein lies all the difference. If we are sure of having those questions discussed in the House when they arise, and according as they arise, then there would be some reason to think that there was something in the so-called responsibility of the Government; but when there is to be no certain opportunity of discussing those matters, it appears to me that this so-called responsibility is all fudge and humbug. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General described the difficulties that would have to be encountered in summoning Parliament together to discuss these matters. I think, if the Tory Party have been praised for anything, and if the Liberal Unionists have been praised for anything during the last few days, it was for their self-sacrifice. We supposed that if at any time the Government should feel it necessary to call the Liberal Unionists and the Tory Party together, they would have a sufficient amount of this spirit of self-sacrifice remaining to induce them to meet together at Westminster without a murmur. So far as I can see, they have nothing else to do; they do not care, especially the Liberal Unionists, very much for facing the country except at packed ticket meetings, and at large Committee meetings here and there—in places such as Birmingham. Therefore, all the Government will have to do, if they are possessed by this spirit of self-sacrifice

  1803
  to such an extraordinary extent as we are told—all they will have to do will be to ask their followers and the Liberal Unionists to come here as often as is necessary. I am sure they will find no objection to this on the part of these hon. Gentlemen if they give out that the great pièce de resistance of the play is a fresh Coercion Bill, and a re-approval of the policy of the Government. In that way, they will be able to get the Liberal Unionists to come to the front and do their duty to the nation. The Amendment now before the Committee tests, better than any other which has been before proposed, whether there is anything at all in the so-called responsibility of the Government. If this Amendment is not carried, there can be no such thing as Governmental responsibility in these matters. The Government will prevent the discussion of—they certainly will not afford any occasion for discussing—any of their Acts in Ireland. The Amendment proposed would insure discussion upon those subjects. If it is rejected, I hope we shall hear no more about the great responsibility of the Government.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do think there is something to be said in favour of this Amendment, and I am at last to understand the distinction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland sees so plainly and clearly between the ordinary Proclamation of this section and the special Proclamation under Section 6; and I certainly do not admit that any of the reasons that would warrant the application of this particular provision to the Proclamation under Section 6 would not equally hold with regard to the application of the Proclamation under the present section. The Proclamation is practically a declaration that associations which exist in certain places are unlawful associations, and that the Lord Lieutenant thinks it right to take power to suppress such associations. For my part, I consider a Proclamation of that kind of thing in its nature not nearly so strong as a Proclamation by virtue of which the Lord Lieutenant can send to be tried under Section 2, before two Resident Magistrates, such of his political opponents as he can drag into a charge of conspiracy with any other charge dealt with in the section. It is a most startling departure
  1804
  from present practice—a much greater departure from Constitutional practice. When we make an analysis of the previous sections of the Bill, and find their political nature, the trial before two paid henchmen of the Government, two Resident Magistrates, it is a much greater departure from Constitutional practice than to suppress a particular form of association. Now, Sir, so much for the argument founded on the
  alleged distinction in principle between those two classes of population. As regards the argument founded on convenience, I apprehend that is an argument directed against the whole of the machinery of submitting Proclamations to Parliament, and which does not peculiarly apply to submitting the Proclamations under Section 4 to Parliament. If it is inconvenient, absurd, and unreasonable to ask that the Proclamations under Section 4 shall be submitted to Parliament, it is equally inconvenient, absurd, and unreasonable to ask that the Proclamations under Section 6 shall be submitted to Parliament. Every one of the enormous inconveniences that follow from the one course will equally follow from the other. Therefore, Sir, I am at a loss to understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should use the argument of convenience. He says, Sir, that the Government might find it desirable to proclaim a small district or barony in Ireland, owing to the prevalence of crime and outrage, and that then they would have to call Parliament together to submit to it the Proclamation, and that, perhaps, the week after they had got Parliament to sanction the Proclamation, a state of things might arise in an adjoining barony which would necessitate the proclamation of that barony also; and, thereupon, they would have to call Parliament together again to ask permission to issue a second Proclamation. Every one of these considerations, as affecting special Proclamation under Section 6, can be equally applied to Proclamations under Section 4, because Section 6 and the following section, dealing with unlawful associations, do not provide, as former Acts did, for the suppression of one large association, and the issuing of one Proclamation of that body. On the contrary, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland drew attention to the fact in his speech in introducing the Bill, an asso-

  1805
  ciation may be a perfectly lawful and legitimate association in one county and an unlawful association in an adjoining county. I quite admit that the whole of the machinery for calling Parliament together is most cumbersome and unworkable; but I think this objection only shows the straits to which the Government, in conducting the administration of the country by brute force, will be compelled to resort to. Now, Sir, it seems to me that what right hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid of, is not the increasing necessity for calling Parliament together, but the supervision which Parliament, when so called together, will be compelled to exercise upon the doings of the Government in Ireland It is not the convenience of Parliament right hon. Gentlemen opposite are considering, but they are determined that the light of day shall not be thrown on their proceedings in Ireland; they are determined that they will have the country to themselves so far as the greater part of this Bill is concerned during the whole Parliamentary Recess, and that hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Irish Benches shall not be permitted to submit their proceedings to any effective review in Parliament until events have lost all their actuality by the lapse of time which will be necessarily involved by waiting till Parliament is summoned together in the ordinary way. This is another instance in which we have, in moving our Amendments, founded ourselves upon the very words which the Government have made their own. This is not a proposition of ours; this is not an idea we have invented; it is a proposition which the Government have made themselves; it is one of the provisions which they have introduced in their own Bill. All we ask is that as they apply to it one case they should apply it to the other, especially when we show, as we have shown, that the position of the two cases is actually parallel. We say that this provision should apply in all cases, and that Parliament should be called together whenever the Government wish to suppress an unlawful association, whenever they wish to apply to any portion of Ireland any of the provisions of this infamous Bill.
  MR. DILLON: I suppose we may now go to a Division on this particular Amendment; but allow me to say that every single argument put
  1806
  forward by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) applies to Clause 6 just as well as to Clause 5. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued on the supposition that the Proclamations under Clause 5 were of an ordinary character in Ireland, and that because there were precedents for them they were to be treated lightly. His argument was based also on the suggestion, equally monstrous and false, that the powers granted under Clause 6 are directed against crime, and do not interfere with liberty. That argument has been used all through this Bill. But there was no
  attempt on the part of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to combat our contention. It is perfectly plain it is only for an Amendment to be proposed by an Irish Member to settle its fate. It seems that the Government have now come to the conclusion that, during the consideration of the rest of this Bill, no Amendment coming from these Benches is to be tolerated. The right hon. and learned Attorney General made use of what I consider a most uncalled for and disorderly observation. He accused me, in the first place, of threatening the Government. He may call it a threat if he likes. I stated what I am perfectly ready to state again and maintain, that so long as we are in this House, and so long as we are not treated as the Representatives of other portions of the United Kingdom are treated, so long as we are driven to various shifts and devices to endeavour to force in the attention of Parliament the views of our constituents we shall resort to peculiar methods—they are methods forced upon us—and we shall practice them until we are treated in the same way in which other Members coming from other parts of the United Kingdom are treated in this House. It is nonsense for anyone to say that Irish Members occupy the same position in this House as Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. It was monstrous, and most unadvisable, for the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to say, in the course of his speech, that during the long vacation there may be outbursts of crime in a neighbouring barony, which I suppose we may call the "peculiar methods the hon. Gentleman alluded to." I say this was a disorderly, and

  1807
  insolent, and indecent observation. I spoke of Parliamentary methods which may be inconvenient and unpleasant to Members of this House and to the Government, but which are perfectly legitimate, and which we intend to pursue. For the right hon. and learned Attorney General to say that an outburst of crime in Ireland was part of the peculiar methods to which we resorted was an indecent observation to be made by any Member of this House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed to a Division, I may say, concerning the observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in regard to threats, I am not aware that it is unparliamentary to threaten the Government. As to the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I may say I did not understand the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to accuse the hon. Member personally of being guilty of reporting to peculiar methods.
  MR. DILLON: I do not want to prolong the discussion; but I may remind you, Sir, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly said—"I suppose we may take that as one of the peculiar methods mentioned by the hon. Gentleman."
  MR. HOLMES: I should be very sorry if any remarks of mine caused the hon. Gentleman any pain, and I withdraw in the fullest manner any expression which may have caused him any annoyance.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman withdraw also the cheers on his own side of the House?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 234: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 228.) [10.45 P.M.]
  MR. MOLLOY: I now propose to add at the end of the section these words—
  "A Return, showing the number and extent of the districts so proclaimed, and the time of such Proclamations shall be made to Parliament once in every three months."
  The Amendment amounts to this—certain Proclamations will be made under this Clause, and I think it is advisable that they should be known to this House. In the case of crimes committed in Ireland, there are Returns made every three months. Also with regard to evic-
  1808
  tions, there is a Return issued once every three months. My Amendment is that a Return shall be made to Parliament once every three months, which shall give the name and extent of the district which has been proclaimed, and the duration of the Proclamation. I have followed here exactly the rule which is observed with regard to evictions, and with regard to crimes. The only point, as it seems to me, which might be made in answer to my Amendment is that the Proclamations will appear in The Dublin Gazette. But Members of this House do not see The Dublin Gazette, and, so far as the knowledge of this House goes. The Dublin Gazette might not exist at all. I trust the Government will see their way to accept what I cannot but regard as a very moderate proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of Clause, to add the words—" A Return, showing the number and extent of districts so proclaimed, and the time of such Proclamations shall be made to Parliament once in every three months."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The cases which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) has brought forward do not seem to me to be at all analogous. In the matter of evictions there is no record except for the purpose of this House, and the same may be said with regard to crimes committed throughout Ireland. When we were discussing the first section it was suggested that a Return should be made of the preliminary inquiries, and the Government consented to such a Return being presented to Parliament; but, as regards the Proclamation of districts, we have made provision in this Bill that the publicity shall be most formal—we have provided that the entire Proclamation must be published in The Dublin Gazette. The hon. Member says that The Dublin Gazette is not much seen; it is very true many persons may not read The Dublin Gazette; but it is supplied in the Library of this House, and may be consulted by any hon. Gentleman who is interested. If at any time hon. Gentlemen require further information than that afforded in The Dublin Gazette, they have only to move for a Return, and if the House orders the Return the order will be obeyed.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I think it is very strange that the Government should keep from the knowledge of this House information of what is going on in Ireland, and at the same time persist that this Parliament is the Parliament of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has spoken of baronial Proclamations; but if we had a Parliament in Ireland it would exist for the purpose of discussing all baronial and even parochial questions. You refuse us a Parliament of our own, and yet you will not bring within the cognizance of Parliament your methods of governing Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says that The Dublin Gazette is taken in this House. I have been here something like 18 months, and it was by the merest fluke I found out the other day that The Dublin Gazette was taken in the Library. I had already inquired of 50 or 60 Gentlemen what was the best method of obtaining information, which I subsequently got in The Dublin Gazette. But it is not the point that The Dublin Gazette is taken in the Library, even if The Dublin Gazette came here as regularly as The Times. The point is this—Will you, when you take, as we maintain, exceptional methods of governing Ireland, give in the papers which come into the hands of hon. Members of this House information from day to day which will enable them to judge of what is taking place? I really believe that the Amendment which has been proposed is an Amendment to which no answer can be given except that stolid refusal the Government have persisted in giving to all Amendments from these Benches.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is quite evident the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland entertains a very different opinion of The Dublin Gazette to many other people. I do not know whether he has ever heard what Chief Justice Morris said about The Dublin Gazette. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Morris once said while sitting on the Bench that he had never seen a copy of that publication. That learned Judge frequently boasts that he is the oldest Judicial Officer in Ireland or England, that he has been sitting on the Bench longer than any other Judge
  1810
  in the United Kingdom. If he has not seen a copy of The Dublin Gazette, we may judge of what value that publication is, and the amount of publicity which will be given to these Proclamations. But it is not a question of whether or not The Dublin Gazette is largely circulated; it really does not matter a fig whether it is or not. If instead of publishing these Proclamations in The Dublin Gazette the Government published them in The Times or in The Freeman's Journal, there would, at the same time, be a strong argument for proposing that there should be a periodical Return of the Proclamations made to Parliament. It is one thing to read casually at your breakfast when you get your paper that the Lord Lieutenant has issued such and such a Proclamation; but it is a very different thing to be able to have before you in a nutshell the action of the Government for three months or six months. Everybody knows that the mere fact that you read of these occurrences leaves no distinct idea in the mind as to the number and language of these Proclamations, and that if any accurate idea on the subject is to be brought home to Members of Parliament, or brought home to the public, information must be presented to them, not in pieces, but in a Return showing what has happened in three, six, or 12 months, as the case may be. Now, the Government admitted the principle of this Amendment on the 1st section of the Bill; they admitted that, in the case of secret inquiries, such a Return as this is desirable; they further admitted the principle that Parliament has some right of supervision over these Proclamations, for they have provided that a copy of every Proclamation should be laid on the Table of Parliament, and that the Proclamation shall not come into force if Parliament adopts an Address against it. That being so, unless the Government wish to save to the country the cost of printing and stationery involved in issuing this Return, I cannot imagine any reason for refusing this Amendment, save, indeed, that the Government desire that the manner of their government in Ireland should not be exposed, as it would be undoubtedly if hon. Members had presented to them periodically a Return showing exactly how matters stand with respect to Proclamations.
  MR. CHANCE: I should like to point out that there is no provision in this Bill which would compel the Government to insert in The Dublin Gazette any Proclamation made by the Lord Lieutenant. I should like to hear whether, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, any Proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be invalid unless it appeared in The Dublin Gazette. It is perfectly open to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue a Proclamation, and to publish that Proclamation in any other manner than by insertion in The Dublin Gazette, there will be no necessity whatever for any one Proclamation to appear in The Dublin Gazette. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for The Dublin Gazette to contain a perfectly safe and trustworthy record of the Proclamations of districts. I also desire to point out, in addition, that Proclamations will be from time to time altered and varied. One provision of a Proclamation may be revoked while the rest may be allowed to stand; and in this state of things ordinary Members of the House of Commons will get into a muddle as to the precise condition of the Proclamations. What is proposed by this Amendment is that a simple Return, a page or two long, shall be laid before the House once every three months. I think that is a distinctly reasonable proposal, and it is very stubborn of the Government to refuse this Amendment, which cannot be said to affect the principle of the Bill. I am surprised that on a small point of this kind the Government have not seen their way to graciously yield to our wishes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 260: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 229.) [11.15 P.M.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I now beg to move to add, at the end of the clause, the following provision:—
  "When any of the provisions of section two of this Act, relating to summary jurisdiction, are declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, such provisions shall apply to offences committed in the district after the passing of this Act, whether before or after the date of the Proclamation. When the provisions of section three or section four of this Act, relating to special juries or change of place of trial, are
  1812
  declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, such provisions shall apply to crimes committed in the district before or after the passing of this Act."
  MR. CHANCE: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. Allow me to call your attention to the fact that by this Amendment the provisions of Section 2 of the Bill will be made to apply to offences committed before the Proclamation of the district in which offences have been committed. Section 2 commences—"Any person who shall commit any of the following offences in a proclaimed district." Now, the Committee having already confined the summary jurisdiction of the provision to offences committed in a proclaimed district, I submit this Amendment is not in Order, because it would extend the provisions of Section 2 to offences committed in a district before that district had been proclaimed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question was raised to Section 2, and an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), to insert, after the word "shall," the words "after the passing of this Act," was negatived. The Committee, at that time, therefore, refused to except offences committed before the passing of the Act.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Mr. Courtney, my Amendment was negatived because the Government declared the words to be superfluous on account of the previous word "shall" in the clause.
  MR. CHANCE: The second paragraph of this Amendment makes Sections 3 and 4 of this Bill retrospective, although Sections 3 and 4 refer to indictments for crimes committed in a proclaimed district. I think, Sir, I am correct in stating that there was not on Sections 3 and 4 any Amendment moved of the nature to which you refer as regards Section 2 of the Act.
  MR. HOLMES: Perhaps I may explain that this is a matter which has been repeatedly brought before the notice of the Committee, as the hon. Member himself will see.
  MR. CHANCE: I have risen to a point of Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General desirous of raising one, too?
  MR. HOLMES: I would just call attention to what actually occurred. This

  1813
  question was brought forward on the 1st sub-section of the 1st clause of the Bill; and we on this side contended that whether the offence had been committed in a proclaimed district before or after the passing of the Act that section would apply to it. In the course of the discussion it was suggested that the Government, at all events, ought to make the matter clear, and a pledge was given by us that it should be made clear. Accordingly, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) moved, on the 1st clause of this Bill, a Proviso very similar to the Proviso which I am moving now, except that it was adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that clause. At the beginning of the 2nd clause the question arose whether it should be made retrospective or not; and it was objected that the clause should not be made to apply to offences committed before the issue of the Proclamation. The question was raised again upon the 4th clause, and a Division took place upon it; and we say that the principle has been abundantly accepted that it is to apply to offences whether committed before or after the issue of the Proclamation. We are now engaged in simply carrying out the pledge which we gave when the matter was under discussion upon the 1st clause, and which has been already carried out in part We propose that the clause shall only apply to offences committed within the district after the passing of the Act; but whether before or after the issue of the Proclamation. What we are now doing is simply to carry out what we stated in the first instance we would do, and which was done upon the 1st clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 41, at end of Clause, to add the words—"When any of the provision of section two of this Act, relating to summary jurisdiction, are declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, such provision shall apply to offences committed in the district after the passing of this Act whether before or after the date of Proclamation.
  "When the provisions of section three or section four of this Act, relating to special juries or change of place of trial, are declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, such provisions shall apply to crimes committed in the district before or after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The view I take of this Amendment is that it is a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour) cannot be so very hard-pressed that he needs to sneer at that—so very brilliant a person as he promises to be. Perhaps he will give us some argument instead of that kind of sneer. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what he does not know about this Bill and about Ireland would fill a very large library, and therefore a little modesty on his part would be more becoming. Now, Sir, I say that this proposal is a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government, made mainly for the purpose of filling up time between this and next Friday, and for the purpose of preventing debate. Why do the Government make the proposal? Because, they say, a distinct pledge was given by them that they would remedy what they recognized as a defect in the Bill when it was
  pointed out to them by the Liberal Unionists. They made the alteration in the 1st clause, but there was no thought that it was to be repeated subsequently, and it was done then in what they call the fulfilment of a pledge. How anxious they are to fulfil their pledges! If Her Majesty's Government are so very anxious to fulfil their pledges, why does not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland fulfil the pledge which he gave, and put down the Amendment which he promised in reference to the question of appeal, unless, indeed, he has been intimidated out of it by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Fulton), or some other Metropolitan Member? That is our point, that this pledge was given to the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and was not a pledge given in any sense to the House. Under cover of that specific pledge, the Government are now inventing a whole series of additional crimes. That was done from their point of view on the 1st clause, and I say that in spite of the somewhat incoherent noises made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews)——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman must be confined to the matter of the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I can only say that the incoherent noises which have been made will not deter me from continuing my argument. Now, Sir, I say that Her Majesty's Government on the 1st clause declared that it should be retrospective on the principle that it was a fair thing that the crimes under that clause should be inquired into at any time, because that clause dealt not only with trivial, but with serious crimes, such as the crime of murder and other serious outrages. But now what is proposed is this, that if, after the passing of this Act, some crime such as that of so-called Boycotting were committed, then, seven years afterwards, if on some other ground, quo ad, a particular murder in a district, that district is proclaimed, then Her Majesty's Government should, by the elasticity of these provisions, be able to make this section relate back to that previous antecedent date, and be able to punish that offence of Boycotting under this Bill. If that be the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, would it not be reasonable to put in some limit of time within which the Proclamation might have that retrospective effect? Supposing a crime were committed on the 1st of January, and you should issue your Proclamation on the 31st of December following, would it be a reasonable thing that for 12 months the man who committed it should rest under the supposition that he was not to be punished? Perhaps his witnesses might have disappeared and gone to America, and a year after, through the present tide of emigration from Ireland, everybody connected with the offence had disappeared. Her Majesty's Government might issue a Proclamation, and under it they might have this particular man arrested, having got his witnesses out of the way under the free emigration which so largely prevails now. I would respectfully say that that would be a most unfair thing to the individual. The very least we can claim on an Amendment of this description from Her Majesty's Government is this—that they should fix some particular time. They should put in some particular moment when the Proclamation should have effect; and if the Proclamation be not issued within that time, then the so-called crime should be supposed to be done with so far as the power of
  1816
  the Proclamation is concerned—the Proclamation, in short, should be considered to have spent its force. It is an almost unimaginable state of things that if you issue a Proclamation five years hence, and this Bill should be passed into law on the 1st of August next, that then, five years afterwards, after all the witnesses have left the district, you should turn round upon the venomous action of some policeman who remembered some piece of Boycotting in the district, and should be able to prove that crime. That would be a most extraordinary proceeding, and would re-act upon many Members of the Orange Party when a Home Rule Government came into power, because you will have a proclaimed district, and though, while a Tory Government is in Office, they would not punish Orangemen's crimes, yet there will be those who will be taking notes and collecting evidence for the coming time, and they will issue a series of summonses under that Proclamation when the proper time comes. Now, I am not in favour of anything of the sort being done. It is most undesirable to have punishments of that kind; but if you proceed in such a way as to invite reprisals or retaliation, that will be the effect. Now, I would ask the Government—they say their Bill is so crystalline that it cannot be made any clearer—but I would ask them not to put in this Amendment, against their own better judgment, simply to please the Liberal Unionist Party who never attend these debates, who do not know anything of the Bill or of its provisions, and who probably have forgotten all its clauses and all the pledges made about them. I would respectfully ask the Government not to do this—not to waste the time of the House in this manner. At any rate, if we are to have this particular Amendment, it should be inserted with the modification which I have suggested—that some particular date should be fixed in it. If the Proclamation is issued on the 1st of August, then let the Amendment refer no further back than to crimes committed within the preceding month. Do not let us go back to some pre-Adamite period when everybody connected with the offence and with the district will have forgotten all about it, except some police sergeant who has taken a note, or some secretary

  1817
  of some proclaimed Land League who will have been waiting for a prosecution on some future day.
  MR. CHANCE: This Amendment has been held to be regular, and the case of the Government is that the words of the clause may apply in a district that is not proclaimed, but which may be proclaimed. If that be so, the Amendment is absolutely unnecessary and insensible; and our position is that, having limited ourselves to four Parliamentary days for the discussion of Amendments to this Bill, the Government themselves propose Amendments which are only regular on the supposition that they are entirely unnecessary and worthless.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I have risen for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but, in the first place, I would like to say that the Government have certainly made their meaning perfectly clear on this question, but in a contrary sense to that which they originally intended. We expected that the principle of ex post facto legislation—for that is what this really amounts to—would not be adopted by the Government, because it assumes an operation of the law which may be held in suspense at the wish of the Government over all the country. This is, practically, a system of ex post facto legislation; and, therefore, I object in toto to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General. But, Sir, if it is strange that the interpretation of the words already in the Bill would simply amount to or ensure that offences committed in any district or part of Ireland not already proclaimed shall be punishable, surely on the other hand there is no necessity for the insertion of these words? These words are of an extremely sweeping character, and they are also, to my mind, of an extremely prejudiced character, for they are intended for the purpose of ensuring the conviction of all persons who may be accused to the present Government, or who may have been accused within the past year or so of offences in Ireland. Now, Sir, the 2nd clause of the Bill is extremely long. It includes a great number of offences given under a variety of sub-heads, and my proposal would be to exclude from the Amendment of the right hon. and
  1818
  learned Attorney General the first subsection, which provides for the prosecution before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction of any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person either not to fulfil his or their legal obligations or to interfere with the administration of the law.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be clearly out of Order to make that exception here, for that has already been decided upon.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it in Order to propose the affirmative of a thing, and not to propose the negative of it? If my hon. Friend is out of Order in moving to omit a certain section, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in Order in moving the insertion of it? If the right hon. and learned Attorney General is in Order, I submit that my hon. Friend is also in Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is put in far greater caution to avoid misconception.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then might not my hon. Friend, out of the abundance of his caution, move the omission of the same thing?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Not if it contradicted what has already been done.
  MR. DILLON: I should think the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would not resist this Amendment which I have to propose. The grammar of the first part of his Amendment is false. What I propose to do is to omit the word "provision," in line 3 in order to insert the word "provisions."
  MR. HOLMES: I accept that Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DILLON: I now move the omission of the words "after the passing of this Act, whether before or." Then the first paragraph will read as follows:—
  "When any of the provisions of Section 2 of this Act, relating to summary jurisdiction, are declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, such provisions shall apply to offences committed in the district after the date of the Proclamation."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a point which has already been ruled to be inadmissible, having already been decided on a previous clause.
  MR. DILLON: I just want to be clear on this. Either there is doubt as to the

  1819
  meaning of Clauses 2, 3, and 4 in this respect, or there is none. If there is doubt, this is to define the meaning. If the Government are entitled to define it one way, surely we are entitled to attempt to define it another. I would also like to take your judgment, Sir. as to the next paragraph of this Amendment, because you will notice that bad as the first paragraph is, the second paragraph is infinitely worse. In the first paragraph the right hon. and learned Attorney General only provides that the action shall be retrospective to the date of the passing of the Act, but the second paragraph of the Amendment provides that Clauses 3 and 4, which are equally objectionable and tyrannical with Clause 2, shall be retrospective to an unlimited extent. Now, Sir, that is a provision to which we naturally have the very deepest objection.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I have an Amendment to move to the first paragraph, to add after the word "Proclamation" in line 4, the words "provided it be so expressly provided in the Proclamation." I presume there will be no objection to that Amendment. If that be accepted I will also propose to add several words at the end of the paragraph. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that if the Government really intend that their Proclamation shall have a retrospective effect, they should say so on the face of it. It is bad enough for it to be retrospective under any circumstances, but if that is to be so, it should be expressly set forth on the face of the document itself. I do not know what line the Government will assume towards this Amendment, but I think it will be hard to show that there is anything unreasonable in it, having regard to the construction—the peculiar construction—which the Government have given to preceding sections—and to their expressed intention that a district should be proclaimed after a crime has been committed. The principle of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General cannot be further questioned as it has been sanctioned, but, at any rate, that principle need not be carried to a needless extent. And though that principle of making the Proclamation retrospective in. certain cases where necessary may be sanctioned, it should only be retrospective by virtue
  1820
  of an express statement. I beg to move that Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The same objection applies to the addition of these words that I have already made with regard to the alteration that I have already dealt with.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have an Amendment to provide that the offence must have been committed within some date previous to the issue of the Proclamation, and I would propose that it should be within one month. I would move the insertion of these words:—"Provided that such offence should have been committed within one month prior to the date of such Proclamation." It is only reasonable to ask that they should issue their Proclamation at once after the offence, and that the people should have notice of the intention of the Government to deal with such offences, and that the all-seeing eye of Her Majesty's Government is upon their iniquity. It is reasonable to provide that they should not be allowed to run on in their ignorance without some warning from Her Majesty's Government—that there should be something like a Statute of Limitations. That is only reasonable in such matters, if anything that comes from these Benches is reasonable. I move that Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  After line 4, to insert the words "Provided that such offence has been committed within one month from the date of Proclamation."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES (who was very indistinctly heard)was understood to say that the point had already been discussed and decided, so far as its principle was concerned.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not suppose that he has said one word by way of meeting my argument. He has said that this was previously fully discussed; but it was not. My proposition is that the Lord Lieutenant should not have a right in December to issue a Proclamation that should reach back for two years. That is a most reasonable thing. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has recommended this measure on the ground that

  1821
  it is a moderate Bill, which only refers to proclaimed districts. But what is the good of such an argument if the Lord Lieutenant, by a mere scratch of his pen—if by the more autograph of the Lord Lieutenant—he can apply the Bill to the whole of Ireland, and make it absolutely operative at any time? For that reason we bring in a proposal to mitigate that, by proposing that if you do proclaim, your Proclamation shall only go back to some particular crime. How is that met? Simply by stating that it was debated before. If it was debated before it was decided before, and if decided before it is necessary, because it must be in relation to something which is already an active principle in the Bill. It is, therefore, necessary to introduce this provision, for nothing could be more calculated to promote harmony in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. The clause brings in and negatives the action the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has been commenting upon from the commencement. He says the proposal is limited, and very properly, to proclaimed districts, when I say that the whole thing dates back to the very passing of the Act. You should be obliged to proclaim a district from the commencement. Do not get up in the middle of the night and induce the Lord Lieutenant to put his signature to some Proclamation bringing the whole of Ireland under the operation of the Bill from the very date of his sign manual. That is an absurdity, and I submit that that contention ought to be met in some other way by Her Majesty's Government. Either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's argument at the commencement of the proceedings on this Bill was good, or it was bad. If it were bad, there is a complete negative to the proposal. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should have made this proposal in the spirit in which he has made it. If one month does not suit him will two months satisfy him? If one year does not suit him will two years? This is a Bill for perpetuity. The day after the passing of this Bill a summons may be issued in order to put you into gaol for six months. Was anything more absurd? You say that I the whole of Ireland does not require this Act. That is your point. But be-
  1822
  cause some policeman has something against a man in his note-book he is to have the immediate power of summoning that man. I think the Government ought to proclaim the whole of Ireland at once. If you can proclaim a district seven years hence, and apply summary jurisdiction powers when all the witnesses have disappeared, and the memory of man has been dimmed to a large extent as to the transactions which were the subject of the legal proceedings, you are bringing about a mere travesty of justice. Crime, if punished at all, should be punished immediately. The least we can ask of the Government is that where crimes are committed they should bring them within the region of punishment, somewhere or other, without delay.
  MR. HOLMES: I would point out that under the summary jurisdiction powers of this Bill persons cannot be prosecuted for offences committed more than six months before the trial of the offence.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am surprised that there should be a controversy on a question of fact as to what happened at a previous stage of those debates; but I was obliged to take the direct issue from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on this matter, that it had been properly discussed at a previous stage. The first paragraph of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment is this—whether, when summary jurisdiction is declared by Proclamation to be in force in a district, it really applies to offences committed in the district after the passing of the Act, whether before or after the date of the Proclamation; the question is, is the Proclamation to be retrospective—not is it to be absolutely retrospective, but is it to be retrospective as regards the period between the passing of the Act and the issue of the Proclamation? I contest the assertion that this matter has ever been discussed in any shape or form before. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what happened. I moved that in the 2nd clause of the Bill, after the word "shall," the words "after the passing of this Act" should be added; and I did so on the ground that the word "shall" meant here the passing of the Act, that there could be no harm in making the meaning clearer.

  1823
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary got up then and told me that my Amendment did not do anything, and did not make anything clearer; and, therefore, the Government could not assent to it. Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman sat down, and, if my recollection serves me rightly, it was because the right hon. Gentleman gave us such a sharp answer, and did not even condescend to discuss the matter, that an hon. Friend of mine on this side of the House immediately moved to report Progress, as an expression of dissatisfaction with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated us. On no previous occasion has the point touched by this Amendment been raised. The only reply which the right hon. Gentleman has ventured to give to this Amendment on the merits of it, is that an offence to which the 2nd clause of the Bill applies could not be prosecuted more than six months after the issue of the Proclamation, after the passing of this Bill. I can tell the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that the matter is not at all so clear as he thinks. No doubt the general law as to the summary trial of offences is that a case should be proceeded with within six months; but if he will take up a subsequent clause of the Bill he will see that the point is not so clear as he thinks. I think that the period of six months is a most extravagant period, considered as the period of limitation for the 2nd clause of this Bill. It is to be suggested that where an offence is to be committed—an offence of the character that will warrant the Proclamation of the district—that, with a provision of this kind staring you in the face, the Government would deliberately wait six months, and then proclaim the district when all recollection of the matter, in respect of which it was proclaimed, has passed away. I intend at a later stage to move that the period of limitation may be reduced to two months; and, if an Amendment of this kind is accepted, plainly there will be some force in the last argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As long as the clause stands in its present form there is a doubt in the matter. I think, therefore, that the Amendment should be accepted.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I think we have a claim
  1824
  upon the other side in this matter. We stand here in the position of condemned criminals. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes, in the position of condemned criminals, and you are the judge, the jury, and the hangman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please address the Chair.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I am afraid that my remarks are rather strong, Sir, to address to the Chair. I think, as I was saying, we have a right to appeal to the House. Notwithstanding the short period the Government have allotted to us for our repentance and the making up of our affairs, the Government very irreverently break in upon us by shouting "Divide, divide!" I think we have not decided—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has tried to lead the Committee to consider that we have decided—I think we have not decided yet this period of six months with regard to summary jurisdiction, because if we had so decided the matter we should not have been discussing the point now. What we have to decide at this moment is, whether the Government wish to put down crime in Ireland or not. They say they do; then I grant you that you wish to do so. Do you wish to do so promptly, or to allow an inordinate time to elapse after the issue of the Proclamation? I think that is a very simple issue, and I think that if hon. Gentlemen will apply themselves to matters before them, they will nearly all be on our side in this matter. Once in a while I think it would be a great deal if they could say—"You see we are not such bad fellows after all." The Lord Lieutenant is to receive power to proclaim a district for the purpose of summary jurisdiction. We ask that, after that Proclamation is issued, steps should be taken to try the cases which have been the cause of this Proclamation. We wish to insert the limit of a month in the Amendment, believing that this will leave sufficient time for all the purposes of the prosecution of the crime; but if the Government think that any limit between six months and a month is reasonable, they should point it out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has deceived the House by stating that it is decided that these matters should be prosecuted within six months of the issue of the

  1825
  Proclamation. We are making a new Criminal Law—we have not yet decided the point of time. When we come to the question we shall have the privilege of voting on it. It is quite possible that the six months may not be accepted. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that one month is not sufficient, then we will make a compromise, and say two months; but I think it is a very bad comment upon one's apparent anxiety for the passing of the Crimes Act, and on the statement of anyone who says there is a great need for it, to say that you are afraid to limit yourselves to a month or two months after the issuing of the Proclamation for the prosecution of the offence. If the Government have the same desire that they say they have to prosecute offences summarily, they would not throw any objection in the way of grappling with those offences at once.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The sub-section that we have here is a most vague and general one, and might be supposed to be dealing entirely with procedure. I would propose that a limitation should be accepted to this effect—"Subject to the provisions of the section of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851." I leave the section blank, because for the moment I do not remember which it is. I would ask leave to withdraw my previous Amendment, in order that the Government may accept this limitation to that point.
  MR. HOLMES: I do not think there will be any objection to that, if it were found necessary; but we shall see later on how that is. When we come to the Report stage we shall be able to decide whether or not it would be advisable to adopt the precedent of the Act of 1851 to meet the difficulty.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYThe right hon. and learned Gentleman promised me that he would point out the distinction between this case and other cases to which he referred where offences had been rendered punishable by summary conviction—cases in which offences were rendered summary offences for all purposes. We asked the Government to give a summary punishment for offences which were indictable offences. They refused to do so. I moved an Amendment to the effect that if the Government would treat these offences as summary offences they should be
  1826
  summary offences for all purposes; but, as I say, they declined to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLON: The Amendment I propose to the proposed Amendment is as follows:—To leave out the last line of this Amendment the words ''before or after the passing of this Act," in order to insert "after the date of such Proclamation." You will notice that the second paragraph of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment relates to Section 3 or Section 4 of this Act which deals with special juries, or change of place of trial, just as the first paragraph refers to Section 2 of the Act relating to summary jurisdiction. The second paragraph set forth that when the Proclamation has been issued, declaring that Section 3 or Section 4 is in force, those sections shall apply to crimes committed in the district before or after the passing of the Act. The first paragraph is only retrospective after the passing of the Act; but it will be observed that so far as Section 3 and Section 4 are concerned, according to the second paragraph of the Amendment, the provision is retrospective indefinitely. I maintain that this is a most monstrous proposition. The Government, in order to make out any ground
  whatever for such a time as that, ought to have placed before us a large mass of undiscovered and unpunished crime in Ireland. But they have done nothing of the kind. I contend that as they have failed to lay before the Committee details of any large amount of undiscovered and unpunished crime in Ireland, as with the system of packing juries they might have been supposed to have been able to deal with, we are, at least, entitled to require that they should not make such a proposal as this indefinitely retrospective. This I conceive to be a most important Amendment which I propose; and it is one which we think natural and reasonable that the House should accept, and it is one which we shall make a great struggle to get the Committee to adopt. If you turn back to Clauses 3 and 4, that were debated at considerable length by the Committee, you will see that a most tremendous machinery has been given for the changing of venue and the packing of the jury. But those are not all the powers the Government take to deprive a prisoner of his chance of fair

  1827
  play, for in Clause 15—as I suppose by the Resolution the Committee is coming to at the termination of these proceedings we shall be deprived of the opportunity of discussing—the Lord Lieutenant is to have, in future, power to make rules, by the advice of the Privy Council, for an immense number of matters dealing with the conduct of the criminal trials in Ireland which come under the provisions of this Act. I am not lawyer enough to understand how far the chance of the prisoner is interfered with by the vast number of these provisions that seem to hand over the whole procedure of the Criminal Law in Ireland into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is not only empowered to deal with indictments, writs, processes, and so forth, including a great many matters that I do not understand, but he is also entitled to make rules, in cases where special juries are required, as to the number of jurors that are to be required on every panel. That is to complete the machinery when a jury is to be packed—where the panel is, perhaps, no more than 200 or 300, and the whole of the special jurors of the district are brought in. That being so, seeing that this tremendous machinery is being adopted, is it not reasonable to ask that if the Government want the machinery to be retrospective they should tell us what class of cases they mean to apply it to? If this Committee would act with even a show of decency, if they will not accept this Amendment, I think they should insist on the Government stating fairly and honestly who are the men, and, if they cannot say that, at any rate what are the offences they have in their mind when they ask for this retrospective power. The Government ought to have in their minds—and I am certain they have—a perfectly clear idea of the particular offences they wish to have this retrospective power for. They have not stated to the Committee what these offences are and what their demand has reference to. We are entitled to insist upon hearing from the Government a frank and full statement of what class of cases this retrospective machinery is to be applied to before this provision is to be allowed to pass. It must be manifest to every Member of the Committee that it cannot have any effect in the way of repression of crime in Ireland, because in the course of the early
  1828
  debates on the second reading of this Bill, and previous to the second reading of this Bill, it was admitted by the Government that the condition of crime in Ireland, more especially undetected and unpunished crime, was not of an abnormal or very shocking character. If the Government are honest in their contention, and their object is to get at certain serious crime, like the murder of Murphy which took place near Killarney, and the murder of the Emergency man in the County of Clare, those crimes being committed in small restricted districts, they would not be put forward for the whole of Ireland as an excuse for this Act. But the fact is that a so-called criminal conspiracy, which embraces three-fourths of the people of Ireland, is under this measure to be left at the mercy of a packed jury, and condemned simply and solely because certain murders have been committed in a small portion of the County of Kerry and in a small portion of the County of Clare. I cannot but expect that considerable and prolonged debate will take place on this clause if the Government do not yield to the reasonable proposal of this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in last line, to leave out the words "before or after the passing of this Act." in order to insert the words "after the date of such Proclamation."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. HOLMES: It is very much to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place on the evening of Tuesday, 7th June, because he would have found that an Amendment was moved to insert in Clause 3, after the word "where," the words "after the passing of this Act." A great deal of argument then took place, and it was strongly urged that the clause should not be retrospective. The hon. Member who moved that Amendment spoke some time on it. He was replied to by myself. Three or four hon. Members spoke to the question from the Benches opposite, and one speech which we listened to was very much the same as that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman asking what crimes this Act would apply to. That hon. Member also was

  1829
  answered, and after considerable discussion the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman opposite had known this I am sure he would not have gone on with his proposal. It is to be regretted that on Wednesday afternoon, 8th June, he was not in his place at half-past 3 of the clock, when another and a similar Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty). I cannot say whether we divided on that Amendment, but I think we did. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has gone out to see whether we did or not. The Amendment was discussed, at any rate, and a speech was made very similar to that delivered on the occasion of the moving of the former Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dillon) is in Order in moving the present Amendment, it is because of the technical circumstance that the original Amendment was withdrawn. I must decline to discuss a matter which was discussed so lately as Tuesday and Wednesday in last week.
  MR. CHANCE: The proposed Amendment is to insert "after the date of such Proclamation." The Amendment negatived was "after the passing of this Act;" there is a great distinction; and I submit that, if there had been a decision, the effect of that decision would have been to render this proposed Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland wholly irregular.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The effect of that Amendment evidently was to make the provisions of Section 4 applicable to crimes committed before the passing of the Act as well as after. But in the case of Section 3 the Amendment was withdrawn; therefore the point is practically open with respect to Clause 3. The matter can only be dealt with by the Committee as regards Section 3.
  MR. CHANCE: The fact of that Amendment could not extend or diminish the effect of the words "committed in a proclaimed district." These are the words we are now seeking to define, and I submit to you, Sir, that in pursuance of your ruling it is open to us to define the words "committed in a proclaimed district."
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; I have not said that the words "committed in a
  1830
  proclaimed district" have any reference to the date of the Proclamation. It is a mere question of geographical description. Last Wednesday it was decided that Section 4 should be equally applicable.
  MR. DILLON: All I can do is to divide the Committee on the question of the special jury, as the special jury is the machinery by which the Government will be able to try myself and others for recent transactions in which we wore engaged.
  MR. CHANCE: Would it be in Order, Mr. Courtney, to move to leave out the words "before or?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to avoid the substantial question. The question was concluded, as I have told the hon. Member, by the vote of last Wednesday.
  MR. CHANCE: All I asked, Sir, was whether it would be in order to move to leave out the words "before or?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; not as regards Section 4.
  MR. CHANCE: Then I move to add, after the word "Act," "as to Section 4, and as to Section 3 after the date of such Proclamation." I submit, Sir, that that will be in Order.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to add, at the end thereof, the words, "as to Section 4, and as to Section 3 after the date of such Proclamation."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it would be only reasonable for the Government to tell us the exact number of people they intend this section to apply to. We shall not dispute the desirability of this provision; but we are, at all events, entitled to know if the Government have some warranty and necessity for this provision, and who are the persons it is to apply to. If my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is indicted he may be taken to Belfast, and tried by a special jury.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The hon. and learned Gentleman asks who are the persons against whom indictments will be brought. If he will put a Question to me in the ordinary

  1831
  way I will try to answer it. He then referred to proceedings taken against the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon.) I do not know whether he is aware that those proceedings have been abandoned by the
  Government, and that they do not intend to take any further steps in regard to them. That was announced in all the public newspapers, and therefore it is hardly conceivable that the Crown will revive those proceedings.
  MR. CHANCE: Those proceedings were undoubtedly dropped in County Dublin; but I have seen nothing to prevent my hon. Friend being dragged up to County Antrim, and there tried by a jury of 12 landlords. There has certainly been a Parliamentary evasion of the question asked. We have asked whether it is intended, in respect to those transactions, to bring the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his political Colleagues before a jury in the North of Ireland under Section 4 of this Bill? "We believe that it is intended to revive those proceedings; we believe that this Amendment has been moved for the purpose of making it clear to the Courts that the Executive will be entitled to revive the proceedings; and we ask for a plain answer, Yes or No, upon the subject. I must remark that, having limited us to four and a-half days', or thereabouts, discussion, it is in the highest degree unreasonable and unfair for the Government to put down an Amendment of this character, which certainly raises very contentious matter, and re-opens questions which have been already argued and decided.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I think it will be a sufficient answer to the last charge brought against the Government when I say that you, Sir, have ruled that, as regards three of these special sections, the matter has been already decided by the Committee. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appear to understand the language of the Treasury Bench as always used in a different sense to that intended, and I do appeal to English Members to believe that when I state that proceedings have been abandoned I state what I mean-—that proceedings have been really abandoned and will not be revived.
  MR. DILLON: It is all very fine for the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) to get into a frenzy over this question, and to say the Government mean what they say. I will not contradict his assertion, but I have practical experience of the way things are conducted in Ireland; they are conducted differently to the way they are described in the House of Commons. I have gone through this business. I was proceeded against last winter; first at all, in a police court in County Galway. The proceedings there were definitely dropped by the Crown, and notice was served on me at my house in Dublin that those proceedings were at an end. Then I was proceeded against in the City of Dublin in respect to the very same transactions. I was transferred to the County of Dublin, and then the trial proceeded, and the Crown was defeated. They intended to proceed again at a subsequent Assize, but they changed their mind, and gave notice that the proceedings were dropped. I have been twice proceeded against on the same transactions. Having received notice before the proceedings in the City of Dublin that the proceedings would be dropped, I have no confidence, even after the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, that I shall not be proceeded against again on the same transactions. This may appear a trivial and absurd thing to some hon. Members; but, at the same time, I do want something more straightforward and plain from the Attorney General for Ireland before we allow this section to pass. He stated that the Crown had no intention of resuscitating these proceedings. Now, this is a retrospective clause, and may be used against the men who were tried in Dublin last winter, or against others who took part along with them. I am not thinking of ourselves alone, but of the hundreds and thousands of men who are engaged in similar work. If these clauses are passed in their present shape we and many others will be absolutely at the mercy of the Attorney General for Ireland, who is exceedingly polite in this House, but who is the very reverse when he is prosecuting in Green Street. When he gets us into Court he will hit below the belt. ["Oh, oh!"] I mean that he will hit below the belt in the sense of packing juries in a legal sense. He will

  1833
  resort, as every Irish official before him has resorted, to every legal dodge to secure the conviction that the Castle has set its heart upon. Therefore, it is absurd to expect our opposition will be disarmed by the plausible statements of the Attorney General for Ireland, and by his appeals to English Members. We know perfectly well what we in Ireland have to expect from the Irish Government. Unless the Government will give us an assurance that this particular retrospective power will not be used in the way we fear it will, it is our bounden duty to resist this Amendment to the last.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We are asked to believe what the Government say. But we are dealing with Gentlemen who, when they were elected, said they did not mean to propose coercion, yet they have brought in this Bill. It is absolutely necessary we should examine very closely the words used by the Government. Now, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom this section is to apply—not an unreasonable question to ask. He says that if I will put a Question upon the Paper he will endeavour to answer it. Does he think we have nothing to do but to write out Questions to be asked in this House?
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to what number of persons the section was intended to apply, and I asked that he should put a Question in the usual way upon the point.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When Sir George Trevelyan was in Office he found all his information in his box. When the Government knew this clause was coming on, is it reasonable they should think it sufficient to say that it is similar in effect to the provision discussed last Wednesday? Last Wednesday we asked for this information, and now, forsooth, we are to be put to the trouble of writing out a question to get at the information! What is the good of having a Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland if he cannot telegraph to Dublin to get information on such points as these '? You do not spare expense, and I do think it is reasonable when you put a special Amendment on the Paper, evidently the result of second thoughts, and not at all arising out of the Bill as originally
  1834
  framed, that you should give us the information we now ask. You have had plenty of time to obtain the information. We ask who are the individuals against whom this clause is intended to be put in operation? We have considerable reason to complain that this information is not forthcoming. We did, at least, expect that the Department of the Attorney General for Ireland would have obtained information as regards these prisoners. It is unreasonable to ask us to put down Questions on this subject. If we do put down Questions we shall be attacked for doing so; it will be said they are nothing but obstructive Questions. Will the Government give us this information on Report? That would be a fair compromise.
  DR. KENNY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) would shorten this discussion if he could bring himself to give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. This is entirely a matter of definition. He says he has served notice on the defendants in the recent trials that he has discontinued these proceedings. What does he mean? Of course, we know the proceedings in Green Street are ipso facto discontinued. Will he say he does not intend, under this Bill, to bring further proceedings in reference to transactions out of which the recent trials arose? We should then be satisfied with what he said, because we would understand the meaning of his words. But at present we do not understand what he means. The Government talk about not coercing the Irish. That is another case of definition. We think they are coercing Ireland. By-and-bye in Court the Attorney General for Ireland may say that when he said he was going to discontinue these proceedings he meant the true bill given by the Grand Jury. What we want to know is whether any other prosecutions arising out of the recent transactions will be instituted? If he will make that clear we shall be satisfied.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland appealed to English Gentlemen, and asked them to believe what he said. I am sure they do believe what he said. We believe it. But I am a lawyer. I have defended my hon. Friends in political trials, and I know precisely the value of what he said. I

  1835
  ask the Committee to note what he said. He couched his observations in the most strict and accurate legal language, so that if proceedings are taken in Belfast or Antrim against my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) he will be able to turn to the pages of Hansard, and say he has observed the very letter of his undertaking, although, at the same time, he may have broken the spirit of it. Now, he has said the proceedings have been abandoned. I assume by the proceedings he means the indictment upon which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo and his Colleagues were brought up in Green Street before a jury of County Dublin. We ask the Attorney General for Ireland now to state straightforwardly and plainly does he mean the Crown will not take any proceedings in respect to the transactions for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo was indicted? I am entitled to appeal to English Gentlemen in the House, and I do appeal to them with confidence, that they should insist upon getting a straightforward answer to the very simple question we have put. I warn hon. Gentlemen that if they do not do this it will be in the power of the Crown, without the slightest breach of faith, to indict my hon. Friend again, this time in the North of Ireland, before a jury of Northern landlords, and in doing so to point to Hansard, and say-" We have broken no pledge; we did not continue the proceedings in Green Street; but we took independent proceedings." They did that at Loughrea. They took certain proceedings by warrant; then they served notice that the proceedings were abandoned, and as soon as the notice was served they served a summons, recommencing the very same proceedings in the Dublin Courts. I beg that hon. Gentlemen will insist upon an answer being given to our question.
  MR. HOLMESIt is quite evident hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have taken up a position that no language will cause them to alter. I have already said that the proceedings have been abandoned by the Crown, and there is no intention of reviving them. I now say, further, that if what has been asserted by hon. Members opposite were possible - namely, that a bill against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) based upon the same
  1836
  transactions could be sent up to some other Grand Jury, it would only be possible by virtue of the grossest breach of faith. I have no intention of reviving the proceedings, and I said the same thing half-an-hour ago.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:-Ayes 116; Noes 233: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 230.) [12.50 A. M.]
  Question put, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 227; Noes 118: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 231.) [1.10 A. M.]
  Question put, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 117: Majority 112. [1.25 A. M.]

  AYES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Caldwell, J.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Allsopp, hon. P.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Ambrose, W.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Charrington, S.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J, E.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Baggallay, E.

  Compton, F.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Cross, H. S.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Bass, H.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Bates, Sir E.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Baumann, A. A.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Beadel, W. J.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poor

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Eaton, H. W.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Bigwood, J.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Elcho, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Bond, G. H.

  Elton, C. I.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Boord, T. W.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Fielden, T.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Finch, G. H.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fisher, W. H.

  1837

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Lees, E.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Leighton, S.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Forwood, A. B.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Long, W. H.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Low, M.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Gedge, S.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Macdonald, right hon.

  Gibson, J. G.

  J. H. A.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Godson, A. F.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Mallock, R.

  March, Earl of

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

  Gray, C. W.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Green, Sir E.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Matthews, rt. hn. H.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Hall, C.

  Milvain, T.

  Halsey, T. F.

  More, R. J.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Mount, W. G.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Newark, Viscount

  Hardcastle, E.

  Noble, W.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Norton, R.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Hoare, S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.

  Rankin, J.

  Reed, H. B.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Robinson, B.

  Hubbard, E.

  Rollit, Sir A. K.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Ross, A. H.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Round, J.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Royden, T. B.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Johnston, W.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Kenrick, W.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.

  Smith, A.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Stanley, E. J.

  King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Swetenham, E.

  Sykes, C.

  Knowles, L.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Lafone, A.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Lambert, C.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Thorburn, W.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Lea, T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Townsend, F.

  1838

  Trotter, H. J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Verdin, R.

  Wood, N.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Wright, H. S.

  Weymouth. Viscount

  Wroughton, P.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Young, C. E. B.

  White, J. B.

  Whitley, E.

  TELLERS.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Lime-rick, W.)

  Marum, E. M.

  Mason, S.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Montagu, S.

  Allison, R. A.

  Morley, A.

  Blane, A.

  Neville, R.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Burt, T.

  Nolan, J.

  Campbell, H.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Carew, J. L.

  O' Brien, P.

  Chance, P. A.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Channing, F. A.

  O'Connor, A.

  Clancy, J. J.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Cobb, H. P.

  O'Connor, J. (Tipperary)

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Commins, A.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Connolly, L.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Conway, M.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  O'Hea, P.

  Crilly, D.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Dillon, J.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Pease, A. E.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Pease, H. F.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Pickard, B.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Evershed, S.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Fenwick, C.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Finucane, J.

  Power, R.

  Foster, Sir B. W.

  Price, T. P.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Priestley, B.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Provand, A. D.

  Gill, T. P.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Quinn, T.

  Harrington, E.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Rendel, S.

  Healy, M.

  Roberts, J.

  Healy, T. M.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Holden, I.

  Rowlands, J.

  Hooper, J.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Sexton, T.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Shaw, T.

  James, C. H.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Joicey, J.

  Smith, S.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Stack, J.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Stuart, J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Sullivan, D.

  Labouchere, H.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Thomas, A.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Tuite, J.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Wallace, R.

  Mac Neill, J. G. S.

  Watt, H.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Williams, A. J.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Williamson, J.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Wilson, H. J.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Wilson, I.

  M'Donald, P.

  Yeo, F. A.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Maitland, W. F.

  TELLERS.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Sheil, E.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, the other night I asked a distinct question as to the expenses arising under this Bill. It was provided by the sub-section which has been struck out that if a man was taken over to England, all his expenses and those of his witnesses, counsel, and so on would be paid. I have already pointed out that England is much nearer to some parts of Ireland than some parts of Ireland, such as Belfast, are to Kerry and Cork. I must say that if a man engages a solicitor or a counsel in one county, or in one Circuit, and the venue of the trial is changed to a division or a county, or a district where the solicitor or counsel does not practise, the result is to inflict on the accused person the necessity of paying fees to a second counsel and engaging a second solicitor. And it is not only a question of the expense involved. When a person requiring legal advice is in prison, the solicitor has either himself to visit him or to send his clerk, and thereby he obtains the confidence of the prisoner. If you change the venue to some distant place—say, Belfast—you throw the prisoner into the hands of a solicitor of, perhaps, a totally different character. Perhaps the solicitor has found the counsel. It is perfectly notorious that counsel pocket all the fees they get, whether they have earned them or not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) will not deny that proposition. It would be a very great hardship to the prisoner if he was obliged to fee a second counsel. I will further say that I do not see for one moment why the
  1840
  counsel or the solicitors of a particular Circuit ought to be Boycotted in favour of the Orange attorneys and barristers of the North of Ireland. I say this with some feeling. You will change the venues to the North of Ireland, and thereby Boycott the entire Circuits of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. We are entitled, I think, to base a distinct understanding on this question before we allow the House to go into Committee. I am not at all in favour of giving the existing Law Officers any bigger salaries, and I see no necessity for going into Committee if it is only for granting them these little consolations.
  MR. CHANCE: I rise merely for the purpose of pointing out that whilst power is to be taken for providing for the expenses and personal charges of counsel and witnesses solicitors are to be omitted altogether. I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be competent for me to move an Amendment on this subject in Committee, or whether it is necessary to propose an Instruction now?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The same question as that which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) raises now was brought forward the other evening in Committee on the Bill, and I then gave the answer which I must now repeat—namely, that we propose to pay all the costs which the prisoner or accused person will be put to by reason of the change of venue, and that this will be done on the same principle as was adopted in the case of the Act of 1882. I can say, of my own knowledge, that under the Act of 1882 the provision was carried out fairly and liberally, as far as I could judge, and I am not aware that any single complaint was made. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: I complained myself.] I will just explain what I consider a reasonable case of change of venue. Supposing a prisoner is arrested in the County of Cork, I admit it is a reasonable thing that he should have an opportunity of consulting a solicitor in that county. Now, if the venue is subsequently changed to some place upon another Circuit—say, for instance, to Waterford—I think it would be a reasonable thing that a solicitor who goes from Cork to Waterford should receive the proper fee payable

  1841
  to a solicitor for going from one county to another. But if the venue is changed, as, under most circumstances, it will be changed, to the Waterford Assizes, there are very competent counsel going on that Circuit, and the solicitor only engages his counsel when they come upon Circuit. If the venue had been changed to England, we considered that it was desirable that the prisoners should have the advantage of obtaining the assistance of counsel whom the Irish solicitor might consult. The hon. and learned Member suggests that the venue might be changed after the jury is empannelled. I can quite understand that it would be improper, under such circumstances, to deprive a man of the counsel who had been briefed, and who knew all the circumstances of the case. I know that under the Act of 1882, where arrangements were made to bring such a counsel to the changed venue-[Mr. T. M. HEALY: He would be paid?] He would be paid. That was done under similar clauses in 1882. The hon. and learned Member appears to assume that all these eases are to be transferred to Belfast. Now, under the Act of 1882, there was no change of venue from the South of Ireland to Ulster. There were cases in which the venue was changed from Ulster to other parts of Ireland, but not from the South to Ulster. The cases that would be transferred to the North would naturally be very exceptional cases. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), the solicitors are covered by the words of the clause.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the question which was put to me by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, I certainly think that the Resolution to be proposed in Committee would cover the expenses which would be thought proper for solicitors.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MATTER considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any allowances that may be made, and Expenses that may be incurred, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Crime in Ireland."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In the main I think the answer given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to my questions before going into Committee was satisfactory; but what I wish to ask is whether rules will be made and hung up in the prisons, so that the prisoners may understand what they are entitled to claim? When a prisoner is subjected to change of venue, the least we can ask is that such rules shall be made, and that he shall be able to understand the purport of them. I have known of many cases of prisoners pleading guilty, simply because they could not afford to keep their witnesses any longer. Anyone who will ask the Judge or the counsel who attended the Winter Assizes of 1881 in Cork will learn that the witnesses for some of the prisoners spent their Christmas in the workhouse, because money was not forthcoming to maintain them, and the prisoners were afterwards obliged to plead guilty because the witnesses could not be kept any longer in Cork. I heard a similar complaint about a case at the Assizes in the town of Omagh. What, then, would be the case when witnesses have to be sent from Kerry or Cork to Ulster, hundreds of miles away? How can an unfortunate prisoner find the railway fare for his witnesses from Cork to Belfast, or, it may be, to Dublin? I may be told that he has only to give the names of his witnesses to the Solicitor for the Crown. Well, what would be the result? They would, every one of them, be examined by a Resident Magistrate under the 1st clause of the Bill. Now that that section has been passed I cannot conceive the possibility of any accused person escaping conviction, however innocent he may be. With this Act in your hands you might charge the Archbishop of Dublin with the Phoenix Park murders, and I would undertake to convict him in the twinkling of an eye with the aid of a packed Dublin or Ulster jury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has stated that the majority of cases will not be brought to Belfast. That may be true when there is no political question involved; but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an undertaking that if they are brought to Belfast the special ex-

  1843
  penses of counsel will be provided? It is no good, as a general rule, for any Catholic counsel to go to Belfast, and hence the Bar there is almost entirely in the hands of a particular section. Of course, a few Catholics are now going the Northern Circuit; hut it is not worth the while of most to do so. I had a case the other day myself, and I gave it to an Orangeman to advise upon, because I was quite sure that the integrity of the Bar was to be relied on. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; that may be very well when you have educated men concerned; but the poor prisoners will not think so. You must assume that among the prisoners there will be one innocent man. That is not a very large assumption. Well, for the sake of that one innocent man I do think that we should adopt some precautions. I think that when a counsel has to travel from Kerry to Ulster the least that can be asked is that his expenses should be paid.
  MR. HOLMES: The clause in the Bill contemplates that the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, should make rules from time to time. I am sorry to say that I cannot assent to the rest of what the hon. and learned Member says. It amounts to this—that if there is a change of venue to Belfast there are to be special fees. I cannot consent to that. It would be perfectly unnecessary when upon a Circuit like the Northern Circuit, where there are, perhaps. 50 or 60 men who honourably carry on the profession of the Bar. I must protest against the idea that amongst those 50 or 60 men you could not find any who would act with integrity. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have said the reverse.] I must protest against the idea that there are not to be found on the Northern Circuit counsel of the same ability as gentlemen in other parts of Ireland.
  MR. CHANCE: The reference of the right hon. and learned Attorney General is, I presume, to a case in which an old friend of the Treasury Bench was plaintiff for the Government and Mr. William O'Brien was defendant. It happened that I was solicitor for the defendant, and I remember I had to take down counsel and to pay the ordinary special retainer. Some distinction should be made in such cases. No doubt the services of excellent counsel can be obtained who practise in the locality; but wit-
  1844
  nesses will not submit themselves satisfactorily to the examination by counsel as to whom they know nothing, of whom they hear that he is an Orangeman, and so forth, and who they may see on another day prosecuting one of their own Party. But the right hon. and learned Attorney General said nothing about the expenses of witnesses. He did not tell us whether counsel will have to disclose the names of witnesses first before any arrangement will be made as to expenses. We require some pledge that the Crown, having obtained the names of witnesses thus, will not, as has been often done, go to the witnesses and bully, badger, and threaten them in order to get them to give evidence for the prosecution. This is a most undesirable state of affairs; the Crown ought not to interfere in this way, and it ought to be rendered impossible to do so. We want assurance that, the names having been submitted to the Crown Solicitor, that shall not take place which undoubtedly has taken place; that some constable or sub-constable shall not attempt to work up the case for the prosecution by getting at the witnesses for the defence under the stimulus of the reward their zeal may gain.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I respectfully ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give some reply on the point to which his attention has been called by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. It is really the most important of the three points that have been raised, and one that will have to be fought out either now or at a later stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the administration of the Crimes Act in the past was such that no complaint could fairly be made; but I think if he had consulted the counsel for the prisoners he would gather a very different account. It is within my own knowledge and my experience at Winter Assizes that on the point of the expenses of witnesses prisoners have grave causes of complaint. Several such cases have been referred to, and others have come under my personal knowledge in which witnesses brought up from Kerry to Cork have been kept hanging about day after day waiting for the trial in which they were concerned to come on, until they have had actually to go to the poor house, night after night, to get their

  1845
  food and lodging, owing to the want of means of the prisoner to sustain them. Of course, the natural result is that the bulk of the witnesses have to go away before the trial comes on, and the unfortunate prisoner is left with a very small portion of the evidence he was prepared to bring forward. The rule of the Crown Solicitor is this—I have had experience of it over and over again—that, as sometimes the Court disallow the expenses of a witness because his evidence has been shown to be false, the Crown Solicitor proceeds on the assumption that this is always going to be the case, and will pay no expenses until the trial is over Now, having regard to the fact that the Winter Assizes sometimes last a long time, it is a great hardship, when a prisoner is tried 20, 30, or 40 miles from his home, for him, if not in prison, to maintain himself, and in many cases his witnesses, during a long and uncertain interval of waiting. If criminal cases were taken in any consecutive order like the processes at Sessions, he might calculate when his trial was likely to come on, and not bring up his witnesses until they were likely to be required; but the Crown officials bring on the cases when and how they please; they give no notice; and if the prisoner's witnesses are not there at the minute it is decided to go on, the chances are the case will be heard without them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says this is a matter to be dealt with by rule rather than by direct enactment; but we ask for some undertaking that when the Lord Lieutenant proceeds to make the rules, which, of course, will be done through his Legal Advisers in Dublin Castle, he will so draw those rules that some justice shall be done to the prisoner; that he will not keep up this barbarous and grossly unfair practice of treating prisoners, so that, in nine cases out of 10, the prisoner is driven to great straits to keep his witnesses, and is sometimes obliged to go to trial without them.
  MR. HOLMES: I have already said that the expenses of bringing witnesses to the place to which the venue is changed will be borne by the Crown, and as to keeping them while there that is a matter that must be dealt with by rules, which rules will be framed so that justice shall be done, I do not mean to
  1846
  sny that expenses can be advanced for every possible witness; there must be a certain amount of examination in each instance before that is done. I am sure hon. Gentlemen will see the fairness of that. I cannot give any pledge as meaning that no Crown official shall address a witness for the defence in reference to any particular case. I might as well say that a prisoner or his solicitor has no right to speak to a Crown witness; of course there is the right. So far as the expenses of witnesses who are obliged to go to the place to which the venue is changed, that will be borne by the Crown, and so also as to the expenses of keeping them there, and this will be according to rules to prevent abuses and to secure that justice shall be done.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And will the cases be in an alphabetical list?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any allowances that may be made, and Expenses that may be incurred, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Crime in Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
  (Mr. J. E. Ellis, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Borlase, Mr. Burt, Mr. M'Arthur, Mr. Henry Wilson.)

  [BILL 5.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I need hardly say it is not my intention to detain the House at this hour—2.10 a.m.—with a speech in support of this Bill. It was introduced some years ago by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), and discussions were taken upon it in 1884–5. Last year it was placed in my hands, when my hon. Friend became Under Secretary to the Home Department, and it passed its second reading without any Division. I hope I may appeal to the Government not to throw any obstacle in the way of the second reading now. It is a simple and a small measure, having for its object the giving facilities for the acquisition of sites for places of public worship. It contains 11 clauses and provisions by which persons belonging to any religious denomination can obtain compulsorily by a certain procedure set forth land for the purpose of building a

  1847
  church or chapel. There are many districts where such persons are placed at great disadvantage by reason of landowners refusing to sell for the purpose, and this Bill is to place all denominations in possession of an advantage now possessed by one particular demomination—the Church of England. I am sure there will be a general disposition that power possessed by one denomination should apply to all. Strictly adhering to my promise not to make a speech at this late hour I now move the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I do not propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. J. E. Ellis) and not discuss the principle of this Bill, and so, I think, I have sufficient justification for the course I propose to take to move the adjournment of the debate. There is a simple reason and a conclusive one; the Bill explained in a very moderate speech by the hon. Member, who affirms that its principle is a moderate one, really does go a very great way in the direction of confiscation. It proposes to take property, whether the owner wishes it or not, for what is called public purposes, though I am not quite sure that it can be maintained it is for a public purpose. But this is not a question we can argue now, and at this late hour I believe I shall be consulting the convenience of the House by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
  MR. BROADHURST: I do not know who is in charge of the Party opposite. I do not see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith); but whoever is in command of the army, or exercises control in the ranks opposite, I sincerely hope that he will use his influence to induce the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion just made. The subject this Bill deals with is a perfectly simple one and is, I think, well understood by every Member in the House, and it has frequently been debated in the House. It is but a simple act of justice to confer on Nonconformists the same privileges as
  1848
  are now possessed by the Church in regard to acquiring space for places of worship. I sincerely hope that the Government, having appropriated all the time of the House for purposes of their own, will not crush out this little attempt at legislation, but will allow the Opposition this crumb of comfort of having obtained the second reading of a measure that excites the greatest interest throughout the country among persons of both Parties, for this is by no means a political Bill. It is simply to confer on Nonconformists a position of equality with that possessed by Churchmen. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) appears to look as though he has taken the position of Leader opposite. I appeal to him to induce his supporter to withdraw this unreasonable Motion, and allow us to take a decision on the Bill. If the Government do not think proper to do that, I sincerely hope my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis) will take a Division on the adjournment, and we will count that as a Second Reading Division.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will only remind the House that I originally brought in a Bill of this kind for Ireland, and I may say the whole of Ireland wants it just as much as do the Nonconformists of England. I will not detain the House now; but I do think it is shockingly unfair to adopt this means of defeating a Bill of this kind. We have an opportunity of doing a little good after passing whole nights in unprofitable discussion of the Crimes Bill. Here we have a pennyworth of wholesome bread to the "intolerable deal of sack" we have been spilling so freely, and we are met with a motion for adjournment! I will only say the Bill is very much wanted in Ireland, and I hope the Government will take some step to check the misdirected zeal of their followers.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not think that anyone on the other side can complain of taking the Bill at this hour, considering that every available moment of what may be called reasonable time is employed by the Government for another purpose. We are perfectly justified in availing ourselves of such a chance as this when we get it. If you are afraid of this Bill

  1849
  then say so fairly and boldly; do not endeavour to get rid of it by a side wind. I agree with the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) if we are to have a Division then that Division shall be considered as a Second Reading Division. I should not have risen to say one word in support of the measure if it had not been for a remark of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), who said he doubts whether this Bill has to do with public purposes. Well, it is usually considered that the religion of the country might well fall under the definition of public purposes, and I fail to see why the religion of the greater part of the population is less a public object than that of one particular denomination. We are met by the cry of confiscation. I will only——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Motion before the House is the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Very well, Sir. I quite understand it is impossible, under the circumstances, to meet the objections the hon. Gentleman has urged against the Bill. It only shows how exceedingly inconvenient—I will even say how unjust—such a Motion is, especially when the hon. Gentleman made a speech against the Bill before he concluded with his Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) will not press his Motion. Some of us have been waiting here eight or ten hours for this Bill to come on, because we understood it was to come on, there being no strong objection to it, nor could there be, for it is a most reasonable Bill. It is brief, the clauses are few, and once the second reading is passed we should dispose of it quickly. I hope it will not be postponed in this indirect manner. If there is to be a Division at all, let it be upon the Bill itself.
  MR. CAINE: I join in the appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow us to take a Division on the second reading. I think the fact that the Order is not blocked, that there is no Notice of objection put down, will justify us in pressing the desire in which I heartily join to take a Division on this stage of the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will not stand between the House and a Division for more than a
  1850
  second or two, but I must express my regret that no Gentleman from the Treasury Bench seems to be in a position to state what is the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. I do not say that as desiring to find fault; but I think this is a question on which we have a right to ask the opinion of the Government. I know that many of my constituents who do not belong to the same persuasion as myself are deeply interested, and it does not raise any Party issues. As to the time of the morning, I do not think there is much force in that objection, for—and I do not refer to that now in any controversial spirit—we know that all the time of the House is taken by the Government for Business they consider necessary; and, unless a Bill of this kind comes forward at an hour such as this, there is no opportunity of discussing it at all. But, late as it is, we have a full House. I have rarely seen so large an attendance at half-past 2 in the morning, and from appearances there does not seem the smallest reason for supposing that either Party is taken at a disadvantage; certainly the Party to which my hon. Friend belongs has no advantage in numbers over his opponent. But, from personal experience, I think hon. Members opposite are much more inclined to take an impartial view of questions at this hour than they are earlier in the Sitting. On one or two occasions when we have had another Bill before the House, we have found hon. Gentlemen opposite willing to desert their own Friends and support a Bill on the Liberal programme. I hope, when the Division is called, hon. Gentlemen on the other side will be true to the assurances they have given, and assist us to remove a small remnant of religious bigotry that does not commend itself to the mind of any reasonable, tolerant man.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: I wish to join in the appeal that the Motion may be withdrawn. This is a Bill in which many of my constituents are very much interested, and I happen to know one instance where a congregation found it absolutely impossible to get the land to build a place of worship. They made application for land, but the owner held different religious opinions, and absolutely refused to sell for the purpose. I know that a feeling also exists in favour of the Bill in the neighbouring parish of Clapham, the hon.

  1851
  Member for which constituency showed a readiness to second the Motion for Adjournment. At half-past 11 to-night the hon. Member for Wandsworth asked me to pair with him, and I agreed, making an exception in favour of this Bill, and it would be hard and unjust to many of us who have waited for the same purpose if the Bill were shelved by adjournment.
  MR. BYRON REED: I rise simply for the purpose of appealing to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and to Her Majesty's Government not to insist on the Motion for Adjournment, but to allow us to decide on the second reading. I think it would be an advantage to the House if the hon. Gentleman opposite in charge of the Bill were allowed to go on with the discussion to-night, and for us to devote a brief space to the discussion of its principle. I, personally, have no wish to take any action that would lead to delaying the Bill, but I know on this side there is a strong feeling of objection to the measure, and some of us are prepared to debate it on its merits if the opportunity is given either to-night or on some other occasion. I appeal now to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 130: Majority 30. [2.30 A.M.]

  AYES.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Ambrose, W.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Baggallay, E.

  Burghley, Lord

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Charrington, S.

  Bass, H.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Compton, F.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Cross, H. S.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Bigwood, J.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Bond, G. H.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  1852

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Leighton, S.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Eaton, H. W.

  Long, W. H.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Low, M.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Elcho, Lord

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Elton, C. I.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. T.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Forgusson, right hon. Sir J.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  March, Earl of

  Fielden, T.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T.

  Finch, G. H.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Mount, W. G.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Newark, Viscount

  Noble, W.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Norton, R.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Peily, Sir L.

  Godson, A. F.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Rankin, J.

  Hall, C.

  Reed, H. B.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Ross, A. H.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Round, J.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Royden, T. B.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Smith, A.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Sykes, C.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Hoare, S.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Townsend, F.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Hubbard, E.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Hunt, F. S.

  White, J. B.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Whitley, E.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.

  Wood, N.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Kerans, F. H.

  Wroughton, P.

  King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Knowles, L,

  TELLERS,

  Kynoch, G.

  Powell, F. S.

  Lambert, C.

  Talbot, J. G.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Lime- rick, W.)

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Bartley, G. C. T,

  Allison, R. A.

  Biggar, J. G.

  1853

  Blane, A.

  Harrington, E.

  Bright, W. L.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Burt, T.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Caine, W. S.

  Healy, M.

  Caldwell, J.

  Healy, T. M.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Holden, I.

  Campbell, H.

  Hooper, J.

  Chance, P. A.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Channing, F. A.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Cobb, H. P.

  James, C. H.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Johnston, W.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Joicey, J.

  Commins, A.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Connolly, L.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Conway, M.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Craven, J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Crilly, D.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Dillon, J.

  Lea, T.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lees, E.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Mac Neill, J. G. S.

  Evershed, S.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Fenwick, C.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Finucane, J.

  M'Donald, P.

  Foster, Sir B. W.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Gedge, S.

  Mason, S.

  Gill, T. P.

  Milvain, T.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Montagu, S.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Morgan, O. V.

  1854

  Neville, R.

  Sexton, T.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Shaw, T.

  Nolan, J.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Sheil, E.

  O'Brien, P.

  Stack, J.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

  Stuart, J.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Sullivan, D.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Swetenham, E

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Tanner, C. K.

  O'Hea, P.

  Tapling, T. K.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Thomas, A.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Tuite, J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Verdin, R.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Wallace, R.

  Power, P. J.

  Watt, H.

  Power, R.

  Williams, A. J.

  Price, T. P.

  Williamson, J.

  Priestley, B.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Quinn, T.

  Wright, H. S.

  Rondel, S.

  Yeo, F. A.

  Roberts, J.

  Roberts, J. B.

  TELLERS.

  Rowlands, J.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Debate adjourned till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.