Commons Sitting of 9 May 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Saving Life at Sea, Viscount Kilcoursie disch.; Mr. Gourley added.
PUBLIC BILLS —Second Reading— Oaths [104], debate adjourned; Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) * [153].
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Fourth Night]—R.P.; Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension Act (1886) Amendment* [230] — R.P.; Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Superannuation) * [62]—R. P.

QUESTIONS.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND) — THE SKINNERS' ESTATE,NEAR DRAPERSTOWN, CO. DERRY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the recent evictions on the Skinners' Estate, near Draperstown, County Derry, on the 19th April last, a tenant named Frank Haughey, his wife, and 11 children (including a baby three months old), were evicted from their home on the mountain top, and left there without food or shelter; whether he is
  1260
  aware that when Haughey purchased the holding it was a mere waste, without even a fence, and that all the improvements had "been made by the tenant at his own expense; and, whether, in such cases, the Government will, pending legislation on the subject, continue to assist in the execution of decrees of ejectment? The hon. Gentleman explained that by the third paragraph of his Question he meant would the Government assist in cases where the rent was proved to have been exorbitant?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Irish Government are not aware that Haughey and his family were left as alleged, nor do they consider it probable that they were, as the relieving officer doubtless received the necessary notice of the intended eviction as required by law, and had due provision made to admit them to the workhouse if they had no other shelter. As to the improvements of the tenant, he is entitled under the existing law to obtain full compensation from the landlord for them, no matter what their value may be, and whether he is evicted for nonpayment of rent or not. The Irish Government have nothing to add to the statements already made in the House as to the affording protection to Sheriffs while engaged in the execution of decrees.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made any inquiries about the matter?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Government had made full inquiries respecting the evictions, and they could not find that there had been any case of special hardship. The Board of Guardians had received no complaint of the relieving officer having neglected his duty.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — NON-ATTENDING CHILDREN AT BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. AINSLIEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he is aware that there are at least 100,000 children who still escape the notice of the attendance officers of the School Board; whether most of these children are of the very poorest class, and, owing to their extreme wretchedness, unable or

  1261
  unfit to attend the existing schools; and, whether he will consider the advisability of establishing numerous small schools similar to dame's schools in localities where these children are to be found; and, whether it is his opinion that the ragged schools, which particularly deal with these children, have been crushed out by the Board schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), having elicited from the hon. Member that the first part of the Question did not refer to London alone, but referred to the country generally, said that he believed oven so there were no grounds for supposing that so large a number of children evaded the vigilance of the attendance officers. He did not think it would be expedient or practicable to re-introduce dame's schools for the purpose of dealing with such children. School Boards had ample powers for meeting the difficulty; and he believed the School Board for Birmingham had adopted a system of free orders. As to the last Question, he really did not wish to hazard a statement on what was, after all, a matter of opinion upon a branch of a largo question.
  MR. COBBinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of establishing a system of free education in public elementary schools?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I think the hon. Member is leading me rather far a field.

  PETITIONS—VIOLATION OF RULES— PETITION FROM CARDIGANSHIRE— IRREGULARITY OF SIGNATURES.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, Whether his attention has been called to a Petition against the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, presented to this House from inhabitants of Llauon and other places, Cardiganshire; whether the Petition contains a large number of signatures in the same handwriting; and, whether the following names occur in the Petition:—Mary Catherine Gwendolen Davies; Henry Basil Davies, Rosehill; Mary Jane Davies, Rosehill; R. E. B. Jones, Cadivor Villa; Dorothy Anne Catherine Jenkins; and whether the Committee is aware that these are the names of children aged respectively
  1262
  two and a-half years, two years, four months, 18 months, and eight months?
  MR. LEWISalso asked, Whether the hon. Baronet's attention has been called to a Petition against the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, presented to this House by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed), from the inhabitants of Llaneilian, County of Anglesey; whether the following names occur in the Petition:— Ellen Owen, Cae Lôn; John Owen, Cae Lôn; William Owen, Cae Lôn; and, whether the Committee is aware that these are the names of children, aged respectively four years, 30 months, seven months; and that the Petition contains the names of numerous other children below school age?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir CHARLES FORSTER), in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the Petition mentioned in the first Question, and it did contain many signatures in the same handwriting. Of course, such signatures had not been counted. The same answer applied to the second Question. But as to the latter part of the Question, the Committee had no means of obtaining information as to the ages of those whose names were attached to the Petition. Accepting as facts the statements in the Questions, he had no hesitation in saying that such facts were a direct violation of the Rules of the House, and cast great discredit on the Petitioners.

  CENTRAL ASIA—AFGHANISTAN AND HERAT.
  SIR HENRY TYLER) asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What is the latest information he is able to give in regard to the position of affairs in Afghanistan, and the conditions as regards defence of Herat; and, whether any measures have been taken for extending the railway in the direction of Candahar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The insurrection of Ghilzais is still proceeding, and engagements have taken place in which each side has claimed the victory; but there is no reason to think that the Ameer is not holding his own. The defences of Herat have recently been strengthened by the Ameer. No plan for extending the Quetta Railway to Candahar has yet been adopted.

  REGISTER HOUSE (SCOTLAND) — REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE, 1881.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Register House, Scotland, in 1881, or such portion of said Report as deals with the votes and accounts of the several officers included in the Lord Clerk Register's Department?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The Report referred to was of a confidential character. The question of laying it on the Table was considered in 1882; and so much of it as could properly be presented was laid upon the Table in August of that year. (House of Commons Paper, 3,337.) I am afraid that I cannot agree to present any further portion.

  WEST INDIA ISLANDS—MR. L. D. POWLES, MAGISTRATE OF NASSAU.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been given to a statement in The Nassau Times of the 2nd April last, to the effect that Mr. L. D. Powles, one of the Police and Circuit Magistrates in the Colony, has said "that he would not believe a d—d Methodist on oath;" and, whether he will inquire into the truth, or otherwise, of the statement thus publicly made in a leader of The Nassau Times?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SIR HENRY HOLLAND): I have read the statement referred to by the hon. Member, and will at once direct the Governor to make formal inquiry, and to take such steps as may be necessary, should the facts be as stated, and to report to me upon the matter.

  FINANCE, &c —LISTS OF HOLDERS OF NATIONAL SECURITIES.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any reason why lists of the names and addresses of the holders of National securities, with some note against the names of holders of (say) over £2,000, should not be annually printed and published, and be
  1264
  purchaseable by holders of such securities, or by others, especially considering that Parliament has already imposed upon the holders of Railway property, possessing a total capital larger than the "National Debt," a similar obligation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The case of the holders of Government Securities is not analogous to that of the holders of railway property, the latter being partners, whose interest it is to assure themselves as to the position and solvency of their co-partners, a necessity which does not apply to the case of persons holding Government Stocks. Under these circumstances, I do not see that there is any public object to be attained by the suggestion of the hon. Baronet which would be sufficient to justify the expense and trouble of preparing the information; and I am informed that the information, if furnished, would facilitate frauds and forgeries. Thus, as at present advised, I cannot undertake to give effect to the suggestion.

  WAR OFFICE — CRIMEAN QUARTER MASTER SERGEANTS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider further the question of placing Quartermaster Sergeants, retired under previous Regulations, and who have done good service in the Crimea, on the same footing, as regards pension, with those more recently retired, having regard to the fact that Quartermaster Sergeants recently retired receive on retirement a large sum of money in addition to a larger pension; and, what would be the total amount required to confer such a benefit on Quartermaster Sergeants, who served in the Crimea and retired under the then existing Regulations, by merely increasing their pension, without giving them any additional emolument?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It has always been a recognized principle that Warrants creating new rates of retired pay or pension cannot be made retrospective as far as persons already retired are concerned. Under these circumstances, I cannot possibly re-open the case of Quartermaster Ser-

  1265
  grants pensioned before the recent Regulations came into force.

  WAR OFFICE—REDUCTION OF HORSE ARTILLERY BATTERIES—FIELD ARTILLERY—FORMATION OF AMMUNITION COLUMNS.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the statement in his letter to the signatories appealing against the Horse Artillery reductions, that the first object for such reduction and conversion is an increase to the number of Field Artillery Batteries, in which this country is especially deficient, and consequently in the number of our more powerful and effective field guns, He still proposes to adhere to his decision that 14 batteries of Field Artillery in excess of the number required for two Army Corps—
  "Will be utilized for the purpose of forming an ammunition column in the event of the Army Corps being called upon service?"
  CAPTAIN COTTONalso asked, Whether it is the fact that it is proposed, in the new scheme for the organization of two Army Corps, to form 14 ammunition columns by breaking up for this purpose 14 four gun field batteries; whether this arrangement will deprive the Service, on the outbreak of war, of some 32 guns of Field Artillery, in which, as he states, in his letter of the 26th ultimo, "this country is especially deficient;" and, whether those guns are now reckoned on the effective strength of the Royal Artillery?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Batteries, whether of Horse or Field Artillery, would, in time of war, be absolutely useless without ammunition columns. We have at present not one of these columns, nor any organization for furnishing them, on the outbreak of hostilities. They have, therefore, to be provided; and the question is, whether entirely new cadres are to be created, or whether they are to be furnished out of existing organizations? The first course would cause very great additional expense; whereas the latest addition to the Field Artillery makes it possible to form ammunition columns, as proposed, and yet leave batteries sufficient for two Army Corps. This latter plan has,
  1266
  therefore, been adopted; and, I may add that, so far from diminishing' our fighting strength by 32 guns, it makes efficient the whole of the batteries of two Army Corps which, otherwise, could not have taken the field.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—LOAN FOR NENAGH TOWN HALL.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Town Commissioners of Nouagh, County Tipperary, having resolved to build a Town Hall, took, in the year 1884, the necessary steps under "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Amendment Act, 1883," and made due application to the Board of Works for a loan for that purpose out of the fund then lying to the credit of the County of Tipperary under the provisions of the said Act; whether, after Correspondence on the subject, the Board of Works assented to a loan of £2,000 for said Town Hall; whether the first set of plans, specifications, and estimates submitted by the Town Commissioners were rejected, on the ground that the estimate was too high; whether a second set of amended plans, &c, by the same architect having been again rejected by the Board, the Town Commissioners employed (at additional expense) another architect, and forwarded new plans; whether the original estimate submitted by this architect would, according to the calculation of the Board of Works themselves, entail an expenditure of only £1,980, out of a proposed loan of £2,000, and whether, by the elimination of one item by the architect, at the suggestion of the Board, this estimate was reduced by £100; whether the Board of Works first intimated that these plans were unacceptable, on the ground that the estimate of £1,980 was too high; whether, after the reduction above referred to, they have now rejected the plans, on the ground that the estimate is too low; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will request the Board of Works to re-consider their decision, and grant the required loan; and, if not, whether he will consent to have the entire Correspondence in relation to this matter laid upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said, the facts were as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. As

  1267
  to the second paragraph, the Board of Works agreed to recommend a loan of £2,000 for the erection of a Town Hall on certain conditions, one of which was that they should be satisfied that the work would be properly carried out for that amount. The plans first submitted were rejected as unsuitable, and they manifestly could not have been carried out for anything approaching the amount of the loan. The second plans were rejected because they could not have been carried out for £2,000. The third plans, as originally submitted, could have been carried out for £1,980; and by the omission of fittings, as suggested by the architect of the Town Commissioners, a saving of £100 could have been effected on the estimate. The objection made by the Board of Works was not that the estimate was too high, but was owing to the imperfect specifications prepared for the work. The Town Commissioners having failed to have the necessary amendments made, the Board were unable to recommend the loan for sanction to the Treasury. If a revised specification were submitted, on which it would be safe for the Town Commissioners to proceed to carry out the work, the Board of Works would be prepared to recommend the granting of the loan.

  INDIA — PROSECUTION OF CHINNA NARRAIN— THE CHINGLEPUT CASE.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Under what circumstances Chinna Narrain, a Monegar in the Chingleput District, is now on his trial for embezzling 700 rupees, Government money, in 1882, though this charge, after most careful inquiry, was at the time dismissed by a competent Court as false; and, whether two other cases connected with the notorious Chingleput scandal of 1882 have lately been re-opened by Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The case alluded to in the first paragraph appears to be proceeding before the regular judicial tribunals; and the Secretary of State has no official information respecting it. Of the two cases referred to in the second paragraph the Secretary of State knows nothing.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC—TONGA.
  MR. CAINE(for Mr. S. SMITH)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 5th May, regarding The Reign of Terror in Tonga, wherein it was alleged that the British Consul was fired upon:—
  "On the following day, February 3, it leaked out that six more men had been found guilty of complicity in the business, and were to be shot. Among them was David Fenan, an ordained Wesleyan minister. Thirty more, it was reported, were being tried, and would probably share the same fate … The British residents protested strongly, and the British Consul protested on behalf of our Government. Dr. Bucklands was one of the protesting parties, and it was reported that Baker's reply to him was that if anybody dared to lay a finger on him every white man in the Island should be killed. Several British residents were, in fact, fired upon, the British Consul being amongst the number. On one occasion, as the Consul and Mr. Moulton were walking in the College grounds, a bullet passed quite close to them. The bullet was found, and identified as a Government bullet. The cool determination everywhere displayed by Mr. W. E. Giles, the British pro-Consul, has won universal admiration among all classes, European and Native;"
  and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps in regard thereto?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)(who replied) said: I have already twice stated that Her Majesty's High Commissioner for the Western Pacific is now holding an inquiry into these transactions (or has completed it), and that it is necessary to await his Report, and not to accept as strictly accurate the ex parte statements which have appeared in the Press. But I will send out the three articles in The Pall Mall Gazette by the next mail to Sir Charles Mitchell.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL—FEMALE LABOUR AT THE PIT'S BANK.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the Amendments on the Notice Paper to be moved in Committee on the Coal, Mines, &c. Regulation Bill, to prohibit future labour by women and girls at the

  1269
  pit's bank, he will consent to receive a deputation of those opposed to such prohibition; and, whether he will postpone the Committee on the Bill for at least a week, in order to give the women who work at the pit's bank an opportunity of making their views known?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State will have much pleasure in receiving a deputation of those opposed to the prohibition of labour by women and girls at the pit bank. He will undertake that discussion on the clauses of the Bill in Committee shall be postponed for a week; but will avail himself of the earliest opportunity to take the general discussion before going into Committee, which is desired by some hon. Members.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—WRECK OF THE CHANNEL, STEAMER "VICTORIA."
  MR. ISSACSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he is in a position to inform the House the reason given by the French Maritime Authorities for the non-sounding of the fog-horn at the lighthouse at Point D'Ailly, on the occasion of the Channel Steamer Victoria striking on a rock off that point, on the 13th of April last, during the fog then prevailing?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Not at present, Sir. The Report of the Court of Inquiry will, when received, be transmitted to the Foreign Office, with a view to its being communicated to the French Maratime Authorities.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—DEPREDATIONS BY FOREIGN FISHERMEN.
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to carry out the recommendations of the Board of Trade Committee, appointed to inquire into the depredations committed by foreign fishermen in the North Sea; and, whether those recommendations can be carried out before the commencement of the autumn fishing season, in order to prevent a recurrence of the outrages which have been so disastrous in past years?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): As far as the Foreign Office is concerned, the Report of the Committee was sent on April 13 to Her Majesty's Representatives in the countries which are parties to the North Sea Convention of 1882. Belgium is the only country much concerned; and a reply has been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels that the Belgian Government are seriously considering the Report, and are fully alive to the existing evils and to the occasion for remedies. The Governments of France and of the Netherlands have thanked Her Majesty's Government for transmitting the Report. No replies have been received from Germany and Denmark; but those countries are hardly at all concerned.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON LORD GRANARD'S ESTATE.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any Statement has been received from Lord Granard or his representatives as to the allegation of Messrs. Roe, that the mortgagees of Lord Granard's estates were responsible for the impending evictions on such estates, or as to the allegation that the authorities of Maynooth College are the mortgagees; and, whether he will lay such Statement upon the Table of the House?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): Sir, the Irish Government have nothing to add to my reply given to a Question on this subject on Thursday last, beyond saying that they have received convincing assurances that the authorities of Maynooth College are the mortgagees of Lord Granard's Drumlish property for a considerable sum, and that they have been pressing —and naturally pressing—for the interest due.
  MR. CHANCE: By the indulgence of House, as this is a matter of some importance, I wish to make a short statement. On Thursday night, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reply to a Question, said the Government were informed that the agents had stated that it was the mortgagees who were pressing the matter to eviction, that the agents were Messrs. Roe, and the mortgagees

  1271
  Maynooth College. I hold in my hand a statement from the President of Maynooth College, in which he says neither; the authorities nor any other person connected with the College are responsible, directly or indirectly, for originating or pressing these evictions, and that: the first he heard of them was in the newspapers. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter written on the 7th instant by Lord Granard to the President of Maynooth College, in which he expresses his surprise at the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and characterizes it as utterly erroneous. I have now to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is the informant of the Government in this matter; and, whether he will lay the information he has received before the House?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The information the Government received on this question with regard to the mortgagees was obtained from the officials engaged in the administration of the law in County Longford, The House will remember that I did not state the name of the mortgagees until specially asked the question by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I particularly refrained from doing so. My informants with regard to the College authorities being the mortgagees were Messrs. Darley and Roe; and I have received information from them that not only that Maynooth did hold the mortgage, but as to the sum and the conditions of the mortgage.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether he has received any information from Lord Granard on the subject; and whether he still states that the Trustees or authorities of Maynooth College are, directly or indirectly, party or privy to these transactions?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am not aware, nor did I over state, that Maynooth College were. [Cries of "You did!" from the Irish Benches.] What I stated was that the agents had made no secret of the matter that Lord Granard was not in the least anxious to treat his tenants harshly, but for the action of the mortgagees, as I have said just now, in pressing—and very naturally and properly pressing—for the interest due on the mortgage, which obliged the landlord to
  1272
  have recourse to proceedings against the tenants.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He states now that it was the mortgagees who were responsible for these evictions; and I wish to ask has his attention been called—
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I never made use of the words the hon. and learned Gentleman used.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to imply that the authorities of Maynooth were responsible for these evictions; and he would like to ask him if his attention had been called to a letter which had been published in The Longford Independent of the 26th ultimo, which was addressed to the clerk at the Mohill Union, and which was a follows:—
  "In reference to the statement made by you that the above estate, on which the evictions took place, is out of Lord Granard's hands, and in the hands of a receiver, we must ask you to contradict this statement at the next meeting of the Board. His Lordship's estate is not, nor never has been in the hands of a receiver.— Yours, &c, Darley and Roe."
  He (Mr. Healy) wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as Messrs. Darley and Roe were the agents of Lord Granard, how it was he had drawn in the name of Maynooth College in order to prejudice a seminary for the education of Catholic priests?
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of his words on Thursday night.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to debate this Question. The Question has been asked, and it is for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer if he sees fit.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in these matters, it is part of the instructions of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant deliberately abstains from coming into the House until Questions are over; because, if that be the case, I will draw attention to it as a matter of urgent public importance.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think that is a Question which really ought not to be put to me. The exigencies of Public

  1273
  Business require, under certain circumstances, that the Chief Secretary should devote himself to urgent business of his Department; and, in the meanwhile, my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) answers the Questions, and the duties to the public and the House are adequately discharged.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to give Notice that if the Chief Secretary continues to absent himself, and leaves us to the mercy of this Orangeman, I shall call attention—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The interposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman is most un-Parliamentary.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—SENTENCE ON ROBERT COMERFORD.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of Robert Comerford, who was sentenced by magistrates at Belfast in July last to 29 months' imprisonment with hard labour on conviction of an offence which, if committed in England, could not be punished with a longer period than six months' imprisonment, Whether the Government will consider the advisability of extending to Ireland the provisions which make six months' imprisonment the extreme penalty in England for assaults committed on the same occasion; whether, in view of the dissimilarity of the laws in England and Ireland he will advise His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to re-consider the claim on his clemency in Comerford's case; and, whether in England, on conviction of any felony or misdemeanour, a prisoner is ever sentenced by a Judge of Assize to hard labour for a longer period that two years?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): The circumstances of this case have, on a recent occasion, been brought under the notice of the Government. I have also gone carefully into the case, and I find that five assaults were committed on five different occasions, and, in addition, that two rescues were made. Mr. Comerford is a man of bad character, who has undergone 15 previous convictions.
  MR. M'CARTANasked if the different assaults wore not committed at the same time?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No; they were not. The three assaults were
  1274
  committed a considerable time apart, and there was something like two months between the three first assaults and the two second ones.

  IRELAND—LETTER OF MR. EGAN.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state what answer has been returned to the letter of Mr. Egan, in which he offers to return to Dublin and take his trial if a criminal charge is formulated against him, provided the venue is not removed from Dublin?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): No Sir; no answer has been returned to that letter, because no such letter has been received.

  POST OFFICE — TELEGRAMS FROM LIVERPOOL TO BREMEN AND HAVRE viâ NEW YORK.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that Liverpool merchants and brokers at present send telegrams from Liverpool to Bremen and Havre viâ New York, because they thereby save from one and a-half to two hours of the time ordinarily occupied by telegrams passing over the direct Government line and Submarine Telegraph Company's cable, and that the increased expense and delay is a serious impediment to business; and, whether he can now state that any steps Have been taken to remedy this in accordance with the terms of the letter from the General Post Office, of 1st February 1887, to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce?
  THE POST MASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Since the hon. Member's question was placed on the Notice Paper, I have ascertained upon inquiry that the Commercial Cable Company have accepted from merchants in Liverpool messages for Havre, and that such messages have been paid for at the tariff from England to America and from America to France. This practice is contrary to the agreement between the Department and the Company, and is not followed by any other American Cable Company. The average time taken in the transmission of messages between Havre and Liver- pool is Under an hour; and there would, therefore, appear to be some mistake in

  1275
  supposing that the saving can be as stated in the hon. Member's Question. I am informed by the American Telegraph Companies that they have no knowledge of messages for Bremen having been sent over their lines. The whole question of the telegraphic communication between England and the neighbouring continental countries is at the present time receiving my earnest consideration.

  INDIA—PRIZE MONEY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a short Return showing the amounts realised by the Indian Government, since 1857, from movable property belonging to the ex- Sovereigns or Princes of Lucknow, Jhansi, Kirwee, and Mandalay, not distributed as prize money to the troops?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Returns of July 5, 1869, and July 23, 1874, give full information respecting the Kirwee and Lucknow prize money. No question has arisen respecting that at Jhansi, which is all distributed; and no distribution of prize money from Mandalay has been made. The Return suggested is therefore, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, inexpedient.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the shortness of the Recess at Easter, the Government will consider and inform the House on an early day as to the date and probable duration of the adjournment at Whitsuntide?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still at some distance from Whitsuntide; and, in the present state of Public Business, it is not in my power to make the statement which he desires. I hope to be in a position to make a statement next Monday, if in the interval, as I trust, substantial progress may have been made with Public Business.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, MEMBER FOR EAST DONEGAL.
  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Sir, I ask the indulgence of the House while I make an observation of a personal character. Hon. Members will have noticed that in the articles copied from The Times which under your direction were circulated with the Votes and Proceedings of this House my name was more than once mentioned. It may be in the knowledge of many Members of this House, also that at the date of the suppression of the Land League I was in charge of the Laud League offices and that there was, at that date, a warrant issued for my arrest. Nevertheless, since that time, Her Majesty's Government, in the year 1885, did not think it unfitting that they should invite me to act as a Member of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade. Again, last year, Her Majesty's present Advisers thought fit to nominate mo to another Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Civil Services of the country. Under these circumstances, when these articles—which as long as they merely appeared in a newspaper I was perfectly content to treat with contempt—were brought formally under the notice of the House by the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles Lewis) I watched with considerable interest the attitude of the Government. It appears to me from their conduct on Friday last, and from the decision they ultimately came to, that they were perfectly willing to make Party capital out of allegations and insinuations such as have appeared in these articles. Under these circumstances, I do not consider it becoming either to myself or proper in the discharge of my duties to my constituents or to my Colleagues in this House any longer to serve on that Royal Commission, and I have intimated to the Chairman my desire that he should take such steps as may be necessary to cause my name to be removed from the list of Commissioners.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think I am under an engagement to right hon. Gentlemen

  1277
  opposite to state what the course of Public Business will be this week. We propose to continue the discussion of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill until Thursday, and on Thursday to take as the first Order the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill; and the Vote for the Abbey, for the funds necessary to celebrate the Jubliee Service, as the second Order. The third Order will be the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which, we hope, will be reached at an early hour.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Motion for referring the Army and Navy Estimates to a Parliamentary Committee will be made?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My noble Friend is aware that the Notice has been on the Paper for several weeks, if not months, and we have been exceedingly anxious to get it accepted without debate, as the condition of Public Business is such as to make it impossible to give an opportunity for debate. My noble Friend is aware that one of the conditions on which the Government put it down on the Paper was that it should be so accepted. But it has been blocked, and it has not been reached on any occasion before half past 12 since it has been put on the Paper. Under these circumstances, it rests with those Gentlemen who oppose the Motion, for reasons unknown to me, to take the steps necessary to enable it to be made, and the inquiry to be undertaken by a Committee, which the Government are most anxious should be done without any loss of time.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask whether we are to understand that Her Majesty's Government attach greater importance to getting the small sum of money necessary for the decoration of Westminster Abbey than to the far more important question of referring the Army and Navy Estimates to a Parliamentary Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; I do not attach more importance to that question; but I do also attach importance to the principle of not spending money until it has been voted by this House. It is a question with regard to the Jubilee, which the noble Lord will recognize ought not to be postponed. I should be very glad, indeed, if we reach that Motion before 8 o'clock on Thursday.
  MR. CHILDERS: I rise to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It is, that after the Duke of Connaught's Leave Bill the Motion for a Parliamentary Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates should be the next Order, Supply will have already lost its privilege by not being the first order.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will consider the suggestion.
  MR. RATHBONE: Do the Government intend to continue to take the private Members' nights on Tuesdays and Fridays?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Most certainly, until the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill is through.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the observation which has just fallen from him, that he objects to spending money before the money is voted, who is at present paying the workmen now employed in the Abbey?
  [No reply.]

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 3rd May.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.
  Clause 1 (Inquiry by order of Attorney General).
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg to move the omission in line 10 of the words "although no person may be charged before him with the commission of such crime." The words which I propose to leave out are very important words, and very much extend the scope of the preliminary inquiry which the Resident Magistrate is to undertake. Hon. Members will remember that this is called a Preliminary Inquiry Clause, but it is in reality a clause for the permanent establishment in Ireland of the inquisition. Bearing that fact in mind, hon. Members, I am sure, will see the importance of limiting that inquisition as

  1279
  much as possible. As the clause is at present drawn, it will be possible for any Resident Magistrate when put in force by the Attorney General to summon before him any number of persons, although nobody is charged with or accused of having committed any offence. That is the nature of the clause as it stands at present, and I wish to point out to the Committee that that is a condition of things which does not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom, but is altogether unknown. [The LORD ADVOCATE dissented.] The Lord Advocate seems surprised at that statement, but I am perfectly correct. Under the clause as it is now drawn, not only may people be summoned without any offence being charged, but they will be compelled to answer questions which may criminate themselves. I think the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will see that under no circumstances, oven in Scotland, is that the law. Therefore I think I am justified in saying that this clause as it is now drawn, is wholly unknown both to the law of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I think the Committee will see the importance of limiting the inquiry, because as it now stands—take the case of some combination to obtain a reduction of rent, or anything of that kind—it would be in the power of a Resident Magistrate to examine persons in a very general kind of way in regard to matters for which they might themselves be subsequently punished, and without any person being accused of an offence. I maintain that unless these words are omitted, we shall be establishing in short a kind of inquisition in which every person will be bound to answer the questions which will be put to him, whether they are incriminatory or not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have waited to hear the explanation given by the hon. and learned Member of his Amendment. The Amendment has in my opinion been already negatived. It was proposed as a proviso, that the provisions of the clause should not be put in operation unless a person had been made amenable to such an offence. The actual words I think were "Provided that such person has not been made amenable for such offence." These words were negatived, and there fore the Committee have already laid down that it is not necessary for any person to be made amenable. Under those circumstances, I am of opinion that
  1280
  the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member is not regular.
  MR. ANDERSON: My Amendment is to strike out the words "although no person may be charged before him with the commission of such crime." I maintain that that is not the same question as that which you, Mr. Courtney, have put —namely, that it is not necessary that any person should be made amenable.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I do not see the distinction which the hon. and learned Member attempts to draw.
  MR. ANDERSON: The distinction is that the words "that no person has been made amenable" would not apply to the case of a person who was actually in custody. The strict moaning of the words "made amenable" are pretty well understood in ordinary criminal proceedings, and are very different from the words "although no parson may be charged before a magistrate with the commission of such crime." Under these words, it would not be necessary that any person should have been taken into custody. If you rule that the two expressions are identical, of course I cannot proceed further; but I would submit to you, with great respect, that "made amenable "and" not charged" have each a clear and distinct meaning. I believe there is no legal definition of what "made amenable" is, and I imagine that a person charged has a much larger and wider definition than "a person made amenable." I would suggest that, although no person may be charged before the Resident Magistrate, the commission of a crime is a different thing from the examination before a magistrate where there has been no person made amenable.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The person accused of an offence may not have been charged before a magistrate. I am obliged to rule that the question already decided was analogous to the question now raised by the hon. and learned Member. Of course, before a person is proceeded against for the commission of an offence, he must be charged some where.
  MR. ANDERSON: Of course, if you rule that the Amendment is irregular, I am bound to abide by your ruling. I do not for a moment suggest that I am able to carry the matter further.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I only waited to hear from the hon. and learned Member

  1281
  how he distinguished between the two cases; and having heard the hon. Member's explanation, if he is unable to carry it further I am bound to rule that the question involved in his Amendment has already been decided.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I had an Amendment on the Paper, but I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Anderson). I propose to omit the words "although no person may be charged" in order to insert the words "until some person has been charged." That Amendment, I apprehend, will be in Order. My object is to prevent the Government from empowering the Resident Magistrate to conduct a secret inquiry, and to call various persons before him whore no person had been actually charged with, a specific crime. Under these circumstances, if you, Mr. Courtney, rule that I am in Order, I will move to insert the words "until some person has been charged," instead of the words "although no person may be charged before him with the commission of such crime." The Government will have full power to hold an inquiry either in public or in private, and, in my opinion, there ought to be this protection—that an inquiry should not be taken until some person is charged with the commission of some offence. I presume that the necessity of the clause arises from the fact that it is desirable to make some person amenable, and when you have some person who can be made amenable, it will not be contended that this provision is required. Why, I would ask, under such circumstances, do you want a secret inquiry? You have already got your man, and you have full power under the Petty Sessions Act of holding an inquiry. Therefore, I cannot see any advantage that is to be derived from giving the Government the power of holding a secret inquiry.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the proposed Amendment would be in Order, because it does not run side by side with the Amendment which has already been negatived, to provide that some person should be made amenable. It is a different thing to provide that when some person has been made amenable and charged with an offence this special power should, cease. I understand the proposal of the hon. and learned Member to be that when any person has
  1282
  been arrested for a crime, no such inquiry shall take place except in the presence of the accused. If that is the point which the hon. and learned Member desires to raise, he is at liberty to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I must call attention to the slipshod way in which we are proceeding. We have now got beyond the word "crime." The Government proposed that when this word was reached, the word "offence" should be substituted for "crime;" and yet they have now allowed the matter to go by. They do not seem to take the slightest interest in their own Bill. Certainly, they have not taken the smallest trouble to make the two words coincide; and, as the clause now stands, we have in one part of it the words "such offence," and afterwards the words "such crime."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded to a conversation which took place some days ago, when the Government intimated that they had no objection, to substitute the word "offence" for the word "crime." I have no hesitation in saying that it would have been far better drafting to have substituted the word "offence" for "crime," and I stated that I was quite ready to do so. But how was that declaration on the part of the Government met? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told us that he would oppose the alteration to the best of his power. Therefore, I was apprehensive that the right hon. Gentleman, in resisting the alteration, would put his argument forward in an extremely powerful form, that it would probably give rise to a prolonged discussion—not, perhaps, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself, but a discussion which, having been initiated by him, the right hon. Gentleman would have no power to control. As a matter of fact, I was apprehensive that the right hon. Gentleman would let loose a water flood which might overwhelm us. We regard this as a purely verbal alteration—a drafting Amendment, as the words mean exactly the same thing; and considering the amount of time which has already been devoted to the consideration of the Bill, and the extraordinarily slow progress we have

  1283
  hitherto made, the Government do not think they can incur the responsibility of initiating a discussion which must be prolonged, and which, in their opinion, is altogether unnecessary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that at the present moment there is no Motion before the Committee.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps by the indulgence of the Committee I may be allowed to say that, as far as I am concerned, I have no desire to raise any point which has been argued before. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I objected to this alteration.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to point out that the Government are themselves to blame for the continual discussions which take place in the endeavour to make one part of the Bill square with another. It is the bad drafting of the Bill by the Government which has led to that result.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Shall I be out of Order if I say that the alteration which the hon. and learned Gentleman now seeks to make is altogether contrary to his own argument on a previous occasion?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that on the Report stage I shall move, in the first part of the clause, to strike out the word "offence," and insert "crime."
  MR. CLANCY: I rise for the purpose of moving an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins)—namely, in line 11, after "crime," to insert "publicly." The object of the Amendment is to require that all these preliminary inquiries shall be held in public. We have been told that one of the objects of this clause is to assimilate the law in Ireland to that which exists in Scotland; but I maintain that there is a very material difference between the law of Scotland and what is proposed here. I have been given to understand that before a preliminary inquiry can take place in Scotland, not only must there be an accused person charged, but that there must have been a public preliminary examination before the Sheriff.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): Not at all.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will probably got up later on, and explain how the matter stands. But I certainly read in his own book, only a few nights ago, that that was the practice in Scotland—namely, that proceedings of this nature are initiated by the Procurator Fiscal, and that the next step is to go before the Sheriff, and lay a primâ facie case publicly before him.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Nothing of the kind.
  MR. CLANCY: I am only stating what I read in the book to which I refer, and I repeat it certainly asserts that the first step is for the Procurator Fiscal to go before the Sheriff, and make out a primâ facie case, before any preliminary private inquiry can take place at all. It is only with the permission of the Sheriff that a preliminary inquiry can take place. Now, I maintain that if we are to have this preliminary inquiry, we are entitled to demand that the law of Scotland shall be substantially followed; and, in the second place, to ask that the inquiry shall be public. It must be borne in mind that the preliminary inquiry is to be made under the régime of the Resident Magistrate, and it is well known that most extraordinary things now take place in Ireland under the auspices of that body of functionaries—things which would, at any rate, certainly appear most extraordinary to the English public. In confirmation of that assertion, I should like to draw attention to what occurred only a few days ago, at an inquiry in the County of Cork at a place called Ardarn. Two Emergency men were brought before the Court on a summons, charged by a man with having attacked his house and presented a revolver at him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member are scarcely relevant to the Amendment he is moving, which is simply to provide that the preliminary inquiry shall be public.
  MR. CLANCY: I was only going to mention this incident in support of the Amendment that the inquiry should be public; and I was going to argue that if such things can be done in open Court, what may we not expect in a private inquiry? If such things can be done in the green wood, what may not be done in the dry?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the observations of the hon. Member are at all relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. CLANCY: Then I will content myself with, the statement that, in my opinion, the substitution of a secret inquiry for a public trial in Ireland will result in scandalous perversions of justice. If there is to be no publicity in regard to these proceedings, the Resident Magistrates will simply follow the guidance of Dublin Castle. I think we are entitled to presume and predict, that, infamous as the acts have been, which have characterized the proceedings of the Executive in the past, still more infamous things are likely to be perpetrated if a private inquiry is substituted for a public examination. Moreover, the Irish people will be fully justified in arriving at the conclusion that things which can only be done in private cannot be defended. Are we to have any guarantee that the proceedings at these private investigations will ever come to the knowledge of the public at all? I am aware that a proviso is intended to be inserted requiring that notes of these private proceedings shall be furnished. But I am not sure that such reports will be laid regularly on the Table of this House. Of course, if that were done, it would to some extent mitigate the evils of which I complain, and would act as some cheek upon the Resident Magistrates. But I do not understand that the shorthand writers' notes will be laid regularly on the Table, or that they will be accessible at any time to Members of Parliament, or any other person who may be desirous of seeing them. In view of that state of things, we are entitled to ask that the preliminary inquiry shall be public, and that it shall not be held in secret—that these Resident Magistrates shall act in the face of the public, and upon their full responsibility. We believe that as the clause stands their responsibility will be a sham responsibility. Their only responsibility would be their own sweet will, and that of the landlords by whom they are surrounded and supported. Under these circumstances, I hope the Government will consider that this Amendment is not an unreasonable one, nor that it will defeat the object of any preliminary inquiry held under it. There can be
  1286
  no doubt that if a preliminary investigation takes place in private, any person who is examined will take very good care, when the examination is over, to inform his friends and neighbours of all that has passed. The additional guarantee which will be provided by the Amendment is this, that any blackguard or rascal who may court those inquiries, or who may give evidence casting serious imputations upon his neighbours, may be deterred by the fact that every statement he may make will be made in the hearing of those who will be able to contradict him if anything he states is untrue. I shall listen with some curiosity for the reasons which the Government may give for refusing the Amendment, should they refuse it, but I sincerely hope that it will be accepted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after "crime" insert "publicly."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'publicly' be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I fail altogether to satisfy the curiosity he has expressed. The hon. Member must be aware that the whole discussion of every Amendment upon this clause has proceeded upon the basis that the inquiry to which the clause relates is to be a secret inquiry. That is the very essence of the clause.
  MR. CLANCY: A private inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, a private inquiry; that is the essence of the clause. If the hon. Member dissents from that view—which he has a perfect right to do—he ought to refrain from moving this Amendment, which would stultify the whole clause, and then, when the clause is put from the Chair, he will be at liberty to ask the Committee to divide against it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it would save the time of the Committee if the Government would say what Amendments they are prepared to accept. I can assure the Government that if they would intimate what concessions they are prepared to make, a great deal of waste of time might be avoided; but so far as we have gone at present it would appear that the Government have no desire except that of rejecting our Amendments en masse. The Irish Attorney General

  1287
  stated when the Bill was last under consideration that shorthand writers' notes would be taken of the proceedings. If that is so, may I ask what the good of the shorthand writers' notes of the proceedings will be, if they are to be kept secret? I think the right hon. Gentleman has made the matter still worse by dwelling on the word "secret." I had hoped that when the depositions wore taken they would be accessible in some way to the person charged. It certainly will be a monstrous waste of public money to have shorthand writers' notes taken at the public expense, and then to deny the persons who are accused the opportunity of ascertaining what it is that has been given in evidence against them. I think we are entitled to know what the secrecy is for, and what is to be done with the shorthand writers' notes when they are taken. I would further ask the Government to tell us which of our Amendments they are going to accept, so that we may come to some sort of compromise with them. How do they propose to conduct these secret inquiries? Are they to take place at midnight, or are they to be restricted between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was conducting a similar Bill three years ago he conducted it in an entirely different manner. He tone was invariably conciliatory, and the treatment which the Irish Members received was altogether different from that which they are receiving now. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has lost his temper as yet; nevertheless, we have only been three nights in Committee, and he is already complaining of the enormous waste of time which has taken place. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are here in the discharge of our duty; and if the Government will evince a disposition to consider our Amendments in a proper spirit, I think the right hon. Gentleman will have no cause to complain that substantial progress is not made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the temper displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in discussing the clauses of a previous Bill was very much more conciliatory than that which has been displayed by the Government on this occasion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I said that the right hon. Member for Derby never lost his temper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Nor have we lost our temper; and I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby got through the clause in his Bill which corresponds with this clause in one day, whereas we have only got through 11 lines of ours in four days. There fore, if the precedent of 1882 is to be quoted, it will certainly not bear out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, at any rate so far as the progress made with the Bill is concerned. I do not propose to discuss the point which is raised by the Amendment; I will only point out that if we were to accept it, it would entirely destroy the whole principle of the clause. The hon. and learned Member asks the Government to say what concessions they are prepared to make, and he tells us that time would in that way be saved; but, so far, I would ask what advantage has the Government gained by taking hon. Gentlemen into their confidence? The Government told hon. Members they were willing to accept the Amendment as to shorthand writers, and the sole result of that has been that hon. Gentlemen have used that concession as a peg on which to hang a long criticism of the whole conduct of the Government. I cannot see what good purpose can be secured by discussing beforehand the merits of Amendments which have not yet been reached. When we do reach them I shall be happy to discuss them, and the Government will do in the future as they have done in the past—namely, put into their Bill any suggestion which will either improve it, or not materially alter it for the worse.
  MR. CHANCE: I cannot quite understand the attitude which the Government have taken up on this question. I do not consider it possible to imagine how the evidence of witnesses brought before this tribunal and examined by a Resident Magistrate can be kept secret. When a witness has been examined, I presume that he will be allowed to go back to his home. He is not, I suppose, to be shut out from all intercourse with the civilized world until the trial is over. Then, of course, when he goes back he will naturally toll his friends and neighbours everything that he has stated in the pre-

  1289
  liminary inquiry. Therefore, I think, if only to prevent misrepresentation, that it is in the highest degree necessary that there should be publicity in this matter. I recollect a trial which occurred in Dublin not very long ago, in which I heard a Resident Magistrate make a very curious admission in reference to some depositions which he had taken. This Resident Magistrate happened to be a shorthand writer, and in examining the witnesses he took down their evidence in shorthand. Having done so, he retired to a private room, where he wrote out those portions of the evidence which he considered necessary to be reproduced on the trial; but he left out most essential statements which tended to prove the innocence of the prisoner. Now, if such things are not to occur again, it is highly desirable that a certain amount of publicity ought to be allowed. The Chief Secretary has told the Committee that a similar clause to this, which was contained in the Bill of 1882, passed in a couple of nights.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; in one night.
  MR. CHANCE: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the corresponding clause in the Bill of 1882 was altogether different in principle from this clause. In the Bill of 1882 it will be found that the application of this power did not depend on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or the Attorney General, or on the issue of any Proclamation; but it depended upon the action of some private individual who wont before a Resident Magistrate in open day with a deposition stating that a certain crime had been committed, and that he demanded an inquiry. There is, therefore, a very great distinction between this clause and the corresponding clause of the Act of 1882; and, under these circumstances, I think we are entitled to ask that this provision of the present Bill should be materially modified. We ask the Government to assist us in saving the time of the Committee. It is quite agreed, all over the country, that the Government are not saving time by the short and decisive method they have adopted of opposing all the Amendments which are submitted to them. We ask the Government to tell us what Amendments they will adopt, and what they are not prepared to adopt. A declaration upon that point from Her Majesty's
  1290
  Government would undoubtedly save a considerable deal of time. If the Government will not do that; if they will give us no information as to what they intend to do; if they insist upon fighting every point submitted to them, we are bound to adhere to all the Amendments we have placed upon the Table, although we are informed that when we may be fighting out the provisions of the measure before perfectly empty Benches at half past 12 o'clock at night, the First Lord of the Treasury may come down upon us and move the cloture. I wish to know whether that is the manner in which we are likely to be dealt with by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only Amendment of a substantial kind in this sub-section which the Government are prepared to accept is that which proposes to omit the words "police station" as one of the places where a preliminary inquiry may be held.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think we are entitled to complain that the right hon. Gentleman should get up from the Treasury Bench and describe a speech of two and a-half minutes as a waste of time, and an unnecessary prolongation of the discussion. I venture to toll the right hon. Gentleman that he will not facilitate the passing of this clause by pursuing a course of that kind towards the Amendment of my hon. Friend. All that the right hon. Gentleman did in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend was simply to say that the Amendment strikes at the whole principle of the clause, and that, therefore, he declines to discuss it. Now, I venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if I understand the principle of the clause at all, my hon. Friend has done nothing of the kind. The principle of the clause is not the secrecy which the right hon. Gentleman has laid such stress upon, but the principle of the clause is to give power to the Resident Magistrates to hold a preliminary inquiry in reference to an offence which may have been committed, although no individual has been made amenable for it, or has been charged with the commission of any such offence. What are the reasons we urge in favour of our view of the case? We say, in the first place, that having regard to what we know of the class of officials to whom the administration of the law will be delegated, we

  1291
  have the strongest reasons to apprehend that those gentlemen, when they obtain the power and privilege which this clause proposes to confer upon them, will grossly and gravely misuse the powers given to them. We are justified in taking that view, to some extent, from what we know in connection with a certain famous inquiry which took place under a previous Act. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has heard of an inquiry which Judge Curran held in Dublin Castle. I know it is claimed that what Judge Curran did on that occasion was instrumental in bringing about the conviction of the persons who were afterwards hung for the Phœnix Park murders, and that that fact amply justifies any irregularities which may have been committed by Judge Curran on that occasion. The charge made against Judge Curran—and I am not aware that it has ever been denied—is that he used the most improper means in conducting that inquiry. He offered large sums of money to the witnesses who were brought before him on that occasion, and he made use of all kinds of threats and intimidation to extort admissions of complicity in that crime. If that is so, it may be quite true that Judge Curran was successful in obtaining the object he desired; but I maintain that information obtained in that way reflects most strongly upon Judge Curran, and the Government who employed him. There is another reason why I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. "We have had a considerable amount of experience in reference to the criminal investigations which have taken place in Ireland in the past. It frequently happens that the Crown Authorities get into their possession some important piece of evidence relating to a case which tells in favour of the person accused, and they invariably suppress that evidence for fear the prisoner might be acquitted. That was a charge which was preferred against the Government in the Maamtrasna case, and it was not denied, and the same thing occurred in another case where a man was hung at Cork. In that case Judge O'Brien refused to hear certain evidence on the first trial, but it was produced on the second trial, with the result I have mentioned. If an inquiry of this kind is
  1292
  held secretly it is almost certain that the Government will only make use of the information obtained in the preliminary inquiry against the persons accused, and that they will suppress any scrap of information which may tell in their favour. There is this further consequence—that the prisoners when brought to trial will have no means of finding out what the nature of the evidence is. It is somewhat hard to argue against what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because he has, in point of fact, refused to discuss the question with my hon. Friend, on the pretext that the Amendment strikes at the principle of the clause; but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there can be no good and satisfactory reason for having an inquiry of this nature held in private. Anyone who considers the question for a moment must see that no more good can possibly result from holding the inquiry in private than would equally result from holding it in public. They cannot shut the mouths of the witnesses they may bring up, or prevent them from going among their neighbours and repeating what they have stated to the magistrate, together with everything that may have happened at the inquiry. That being so, it is perfectly hopeless for the Government to suppose that they can keep what happens at the inquiry perfectly secret. The only argument which can possibly be put forward on the other side is, that if you make the inquiry private the evidence may not come to the ears of those who are implicated, and who, if it did reach them, might take advantage of the opportunity to escape before they were arrested. There is no provision whatever in this clause which enables the Government to detain any person who has given evidence, although we know that in the past they have frequently detained witnesses and have done so illegally, and without having an atom of power to do it after the witnesses had given their evidence. I should like the Government to explain how, by holding an inquiry in secret, they propose to prevent any information, the publication of which might be dangerous, from getting into the possession of the persons who may be implicated. Under all the circumstances, I do not see what possible good can result from the secrecy of the investiga-

  1293
  tion, and I entertain great fears that a public danger may be involved in this secrecy and privacy.
  MR. CLANCY: I will ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment; but, in doing so, I wish to say one or two words in reference to the lecture which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary delivered to me. The right hon. Gentleman not only lectured me, but, by implication, the Party to which I belong. Now, I need no lecture from the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I want to be taught Parliamentary or any other manners by the Chief Secretary. I see nothing inconsistent in opposing this clause of the Bill altogether, and in striving to mitigate its harshness and injustice. I may add that after having striven to take the venom out of this clause, I propose to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice in one particular, and to do the best I can to get the clause rejected altogether at the proper time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I have now to move in line 11, after the word "sit," to leave out "at a police court or a petty sessional courthouse, or police-station," and to insert "at the place where petty sessions for the district are usually held." The clause provides that
  "The Resident Magistrate directed to hold the inquiry shall sit at a police court or petty sessional courthouse, or police station."
  I propose to leave out those words, for the purpose of securing that the place of inquiry shall be the place where the district petty sessions is usually held. I think it will be allowed that the words of the clause as the Bill is printed are extremely wide. The Chief Secretary has already intimated that he is prepared to omit the words "police station;" but I did not understand him to make the same concession in regard to the holding of the inquiry at a police court or petty sessional court. My object in proposing this Amendment is to ensure that the proceedings and the supposed offence in connection with which they are held shall have the usual geographical relation. As the clause stands the words "police court or petty sessional court "may mean any court of the kind throughout the whole of Ireland, quite irrespective of the district in which the
  1294
  offence has been committed. Hon. Members will remember an expression used by the Prime Minister last week in regard to what is going on in Ireland at present. The noble Marquess used an extensive phrase. He said that "a land war" is going on, and that it is necessary that an Act of Parliament should be speedily passed in order to secure the due administration of the law. We have been told this evening that much time has been lost in respect of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in an after-dinner speech, on Saturday, used the same sort of language. Now, in view of our proceedings in Committee, such, insinuations appear to me baseless. I think that what has taken place in regard to this clause affords ample justification for all the Amendments which have been proposed, for not only have words been left out, but other words have been added, and the 60 words agreed to up to the present moment are essentially diverse from the 40 which stood in their place when the clause was introduced. I believe that no more complete justification of the action which, has been taken on this side of the House could have been adduced.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page l, line 11, after "sit," leave out "at a police court or petty sessional courthouse, or police station," and insert "at the place where potty sessions for the district are usually held."—(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): My right hon. Friend has already said that the Government are ready to accept the Amendment as far as leaving out the words "police station" is concerned. As to the words proposed to be inserted, the result of introducing them would be that if the offence were committed in Dublin no inquiry could be held, for the reason that Dublin is not a petty sessional district. There are police courts in Dublin, but there are no police courts out of Dublin. Throughout the country there are petty sessional courts; and what I propose is this—to omit the words "at a police court or petty sessional courthouse, or police station," in order to insert these words—

  1295
  "At a police court or at a place where the petty sessions for the petty sessional district in which the said offence has been committed are usually held."
  Those words are in the Acts of 1882 and 1883, and I am quite ready to substitute them for the words as they now stand in the clause.
  MR. CHANCE: The words "police court" did not occur at all in the Act of 1882.
  MR. HOLMES: Those were practically the words that were used in the Act of 1882, the only difference being that in that Act the words "police office" wore used. The Government were of opinion that the words "police court" had a narrower application, and for that reason they proposed to introduce them. I may remind the hon. Member that inquiries were held in the police office in Castle Yard, in Dublin.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The proceedings which took place at Dublin Castle under the Act of 1882 were grossly illegal. At the same time, I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. E. Ellis) above the Gangway to accept the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland. The only object is to secure that the inquiry should be held in the district where the offence is committed.
  MR. CHANCE: Why should not the police court jurisdiction be confined to Dublin, which is the only place where there are police courts?
  An hon. MEMBER: There is a police court also in Belfast.
  MR. HOLMES: Belfast and Cork are in a petty sessional district, and Dublin is the only place which is an exception, and where there are only police courts.
  MR. CHANCE: I would move to add to the Amendment these words—" And in the case of Dublin, at the police court."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That would not be altogether relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee.
  MR. CHANCE: Then, if the Amendment is accepted, I will move an additional Amendment to add the words I have suggested.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment now before the Committee is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire.
  MR. HOLMES: I have no objection to an Amendment in the form I propose—namely,
  1296
  "That an inquiry shall; be held at a police court in Dublin, or at a place whore the petty sessions for the petty sessional district in which the offence has been committed are usually held."
  MR. CLANCY: These words will not; do at all. Under them it seems to me that it will be quite possible to hold all the inquiries in Dublin, which would be intolerable.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think that the Amendment which stands in my name next on the Paper, in these words—to leave out "at a police court or," and insert—
  "As regards any district where any building used as a police court exists, in such building, and elsewhere in a potty sessional courthouse,"
  would exactly carry out the intention of the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. HOLMES: I should prefer the words which I have myself suggested. I think there can be no doubt whatever that if these words are inserted the Act will apply to Dublin.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page l, line 11, to leave out the words "or petty sessional courthouse or police station," in order to insert the words "when an offence has been committed in Dublin or in the place where the petty sessions for the petty sessional district in which the offence has been committed are usually held." —(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have now to propose, in line 12, to insert, after the word "and," the words "at any time between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m." I presume it is not necessary that I should say anything about the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after "and," insert "at any time between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Member will see that the Amendment he suggests would not be in the interest of the witness himself, who might find it necessary to come up for examination again. Suppose that an examination commenced at half-past 5,

  1297
  if this Amendment were adopted, it could not be continued after 6 o'clock.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then mate it midnight.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under this Amendment, the inquiry would have to be cut short at 6, and a more inconvenient course could not be conceived, both as regards the persons the hon. and learned Member desires to protect and the magistrates. It would be clearly not for the convenience of the magistrate that he should be called upon to depart from the ordinary course; and. the result of adopting this Amendment would be, in many instances, to occasion great delay, and probably subject the witnesses themselves to hardship. Therefore, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely there ought to be some limit, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we ourselves are placed under the half past 12 o'clock Rule. The right hon. Gentleman says it is to the interest of the witnesses themselves that there should be no limit as to the hour of inquiry. I do not think that it is to the interest of anybody to be dragged out of his bed at midnight. I have no doubt that the Government will make this Bill, as they have made similar measures, an instrument of torture. That is what the Bill is, and, therefore, I am of opinion that these exceptional powers should not be employed except at a reasonable hour.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite ready to accept words to provide that no examination shall begin except between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. M. HEALY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 13, by leaving out "witness," and inserting "person."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: My next Amendment is to provide that—
  "The magistrate shall examine on oath concerning any alleged offence witnesses summoned before him in the prescribed manner."
  This Amendment is of very great importance, and if the Government desire to work the provisions of the measure in a reasonable manner they will certainly accept it. I may be told that the
  1298
  Petty Sessions Act makes provision for all this; but I say that it does not. When the Grand Committee which sat upstairs, under the Presidency of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), to consider the Bill for the Amendment of the Criminal Law, care was taken to have a prescribed form for everything that was done. In that Bill a considerable number of forms were included in a Schedule; and, in this case, I think it, is only right to provide that the summons shall be in a prescribed form. The Government, later on in the clause, deal with the matter in a very insidious way. They say, in the 2nd sub-section—"
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance of a witness before a justice shall apply for the purpose of this section,"
  and so on. As the clause now stands, the Government, in a cruel and atrocious manner, provide that a contumacious witness shall be subjected to the same penalty for an ordinary offence as if it were an indictable crime. For instance, under the Petty Sessions Act, a contumacious witness in a case of Boycotting could only receive one month's imprisonment; but if the case were treated as one which relates to an indictable crime, the contumacious witness would be rendered liable to a heavy sentence of penal servitude—even penal servitude for life. I think that everything done under the Act should be done regularly. In the first place, the offence of which a man is charged should be specified, and the witness should be informed of the nature of the subject upon which he is asked to give evidence, so that no irrelevant question may be put to him. For instance, if a person is summoned to give evidence in regard to an offence against coining, it should not be legal, when he goes before a magistrate, to put questions to him in regard to other offences. The magistrate should not have power to range over a whole series of questions. I am glad that the Government have, for the first time, numbered the Amendments on the Paper, which is a matter of great convenience to hon. Members. I would refer the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General to Amendment No. 45, which stands on the Paper in my name. That Amendment provides that—
  "No witness shall be compelled to attend except upon a summons, stating the place of

  1299
  inquiry, the name of the magistrate authorized to hold it, and the crime with regard to "which his evidence is desired, nor shall any witness he questioned on any matter not relating to the crime with respect to which he has been summoned."
  I think that is a very fair Amendment to insert.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out after "witness," and insert "summoned in the prescribed manner."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES: If these words are inserted it would be impossible for the Government to bring up witnesses before this tribunal except by the ordinary method of summons. The Government are not prepared to accept that proposal. A law passed for England in 1847, and extended to Ireland in 1851, provides that where depositions have been taken against a person charged with an offence under ordinary circumstances witnesses must be summoned, and the Schedule contains various forms of summonses. It has sometimes been found—I will not say that it happens often—but certainly it has sometimes happened, that the serving of a summons upon a witness has enabled him to put himself out of the jurisdiction of the Court—to conceal himself, and not go before the Court at all. If the magistrate is satisfied upon information that a witness is not likely to appear, then, instead of issuing a summons, he can issue a warrant for the purpose of bringing the witness before the Court that he may be examined. As he would be discharged as soon as he has been examined, I do not see that any injury would result. It might so happen, if it were made necessary to issue a summons, that you would place in the power of the man whose evidence you desire to obtain the very means which would induce him to go somewhere where he could not be reached, and could not, consequently, be called as a witness at all. I have pointed out that this is in no way an exceptional provision; and, therefore, I hope the Committee will not consent to the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What we now understand the Government is going to do is this, They are going to place all the people in the whole of the country side under arrest. That is the confession
  1300
  which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. No witnesses are to be summoned, but a posse of police are to go down and throw a net or draw a cordon over the whole district, and then "beat" the people they succeed in catching into the police station. That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed. The witnesses are not to be summoned; but they are to be hunted for by the police, and are not to receive half-an-hour's notice. Let me take a case. Suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman were at work in the Four Courts, and a policeman were to pat him on the shoulder and say that he was wanted elsewhere. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to be taken off without a moment's notice? I say that a more monstrous proposal was never made. Surely the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has his eyes open to the enormous mischief such a provision must produce. The Government appear to be carrying out the provisions of this Bill as though they were in Upper Burmah with a drum-head court martial, instead of legislating for a civilized country. I never heard of anything like it. Where is your Scotch law? Where are the Liberal Unionists who have hitherto been so ready to tell us what is done in Scotland. Without even aviaticum, people are to leave their business at a moment's notice, whether they may be sick or suffering, or whatever their position may be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's words are certainly a revelation to the House, for no one could, have had any information that anything of this kind was intended. I do beseech the Government, if they wish to extract anything like good out of this clause, to render it something more tolerable to the people among whom it will have to be worked. I declare that unless the law is rendered somewhat more reasonable, the Irish Members ought to go among the Irish people, the moment the Bill is passed, and tell them at all risks to defy the law, and be prepared to go to prison rather than to obey a law so inhuman and iniquitous.
  MR. CHANCE: The Act of 1882 has been constantly quoted as a justification for this clause, but there is nothing contained in that Act about sending up a posse of police to capture witnesses, and drag them up before a magistrate upon

  1301
  a warrant obtained behind their backs. You have quoted the Act of 1882 against us, and I think we are entitled to show how much more harshly this clause will bear upon the Irish people.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: No distinction whatever is made in this Bill with regard to the power of obtaining evidence, whether the offence dealt with is an indictable offence, or one which maybe tried summarily before a Court of Petty Sessions. I know that there have been cases where witnesses have been brought before a magistrate without a formal summons; but it has always been whore the crime committed was an indictable offence, and even in that case a notice had to be handed into the Court in writing that there was a probability of the witness not attending unless steps were taken to compel him to do so. That, however, is not the case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has referred to. he has spoken of cases in which it is probable that if a summons were served the person receiving it would levant. The provisions of the Petty Sessions Act refer to a totally different circumstance—namely, where persons are unwilling to come forward unless they are forced to do so. I think this is a proper time to refer to the whole scope of the Bill. The explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman shows clearly that although the words at the end of the 1st clause show that the intention at the time the Bill was drafted was to confine these powers to indictable offences, and not to ordinary offences, it is intended now very materially to enlarge the scope of the measure. If hon. Members will refer to the 2nd clause, they will see that the offences there dealt with are indictable offences. My opinion is that no witness should be required to attend before the Resident Magistrate for examination except upon a summons, and that the summons itself should be in a prescribed form except in such a case as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, where there is reason to believe that the person summoned would be likely to disappear without appearing before the Court at all, and would have time to do so. In that case a proviso may be inserted directing a warrant to be issued in a prescribed form after information upon oath has been given to the magistrate.
  MR. HOLMES: My argument has been altogether misstated by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. I did not say anything in my observations about drawing the cordon round the district, and dragging the people into a police station. What I referred to is only the existing law, both of England and Ireland—namely, that the justices may, in certain circumstances, issue a Warrant.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: For an indictable offence.
  MR. HOLMES: Certainly, in the case of an indictable offence. But it is stated that a witness will not attend unless he is compelled to do so. A warrant may be issued for the arrest of such person, but it is merely a warrant to bring the person before the justices for the purpose of examination. It does not enable the magistrates to detain him for a moment longer, or to commit him to prison in any way. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) to the 2nd clause. That clause extends the summary jurisdiction and specifies the offences which may be proceeded against before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the provisions of this measure.
  MR. CHANCE: We have had an interesting statement of the law of England and Ireland from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but the law he has referred to relates only to indictable offences, and he has taken no notice of the fact that in this section he does not deal with indictable offences, but with ordinary offences, and he provides a tribunal for dealing exceptionally with those offences for the first time by this Bill. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept words to this effect—that a witness may be examined on oath upon a summons or warrant issued in the prescribed form?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that is a reasonable suggestion, and it would enable the Government to get all the power they desire. My hon. Friend suggests that the words should be—
  "Examined on oath concerning such offence any witness appearing before him on a summons or warrant issued in the prescribed manner."
  In that case there must either be a summons in the prescribed manner or a warrant in the prescribed manner.
  MR. HOLMES: I think that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member were adopted it would make the clause much more stringent than it is now. I would strongly advise the Committee to retain the provision as it appears in the Bill itself.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The answer to that is, that provision would have to be made later on in regard to the prescribed form, fixing the time for the attendance of a witness, the place in which it will be necessary for him to appear, whore he is to give his evidence, and the crime with regard to which he is to give evidence. These words involve, I think, all the essential elements of a summons—namely, that a man should be told where he is to go, when he is to appear, who he is to appear before, and what is the charge upon which he is to give evidence.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: The conversation which has occurred justifies the view I took all along of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. The previous Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend limited the hours during which this secret investigation could be held. As the clause now stands, an investigation can commence before 6 o'clock in the evening and be continued all through the night; and if in the examination of a witness who may, perhaps, be a most untruthful man, and perhaps a criminal at heart, he may, in order to protect himself, criminate any respectable member of the community, who in that case can be hauled out of his bed at any hour of the night. Therefore, I think that what the hon. Member for Kilkenny has suggested is not unfair—namely, that a witness should appear after due notice by summons or warrant. If it should appear that a man incriminated by the evidence of a witness is likely to get out of the way, then, of course, a warrant would be valuable; but I think it is too bad to leave it in the power of any witness, under a cross examination, to incriminate another person, and render him liable to be aroused out of his bed at a most unreasonable hour of the night. I may say that if this part of the clause is to be adhered to the other concessions which have been made by the Government are altogether valueless and illusory.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Sub-section 2 of this clause says—
  "The enactments relating to the compelling of the attendance of a witness before a justice, and to a -witness attending before a justice and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint for an indictable offence, shall apply for the purposes of this section as if they were re-enacted herein, and in terms made applicable thereto."
  I admit the force of giving exceptional powers in the case of an indictable offence; but this sub-section provides that all the enactments which at present exist shall apply as if they were re-enacted.
  MR. HOLMES: The offences to which an extension of summary jurisdiction is applied are specified in the 2nd clause.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I understand that this 2nd sub-section of the clause we are now considering applies to offences under the Petty Sessions Act. What I understand to be the complaint of the Attorney General for Ireland is, that the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act relating to indictable offences should apply to the case of indictable offences only, and that the provisions of the Act relating to summary procedure should apply only to the commission of an ordinary offence.
  MR. HOLMES: I understand the hon. Member for Donegal to ask whether I am prepared to insert in the proper place—which I think would be the 2nd sub-section—a proviso that a warrant shall not be issued except in the case of an indictable offence. Surely it is quite enough to deal with the Amendment now before the Committee without entering into other matters.
  MR. CHANCE: All I have to say is that hon. Members on this side of the House will feel it their duty to fight this Amendment, unless they clearly understand that it is the intention of the Government to abandon the power to issue warrants in cases of non-indictable offences. They have here a double power. Not only can they issue warrants for offences which may be proceeded against summarily, but they can send persons to prison for an indefinite period.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: There is another point arising out of this Amendment which I think is very material, an which I do not think has been referred to—namely, that not only does this section, as it is drawn, permit a person to

  1305
  be examined as a witness, but it justifies his being arrested summarily without a warrant. The power to keep him under arrest is practically indefinite, Inquiries under this section, we know very well, cannot be finished in the course of a day. The inquiries which took place in reference to the Phœnix Park murders occupied weeks and months. What may happen here is that before an inquiry commences, and before a single atom of evidence has been obtained, the Government may arrest in advance every man they may think capable of giving evidence. Such an investigation may occupy weeks and months, and they may keep the man they have arrested in prison under the pretext that the stage of the inquiry has not yet arrived when they ought to be examined. I think that is a very important matter. It means that the Government, under this provision, will have the power of imprisoning a man indefinitely.
  MR. HOLMES: What we propose to do is this. As regards procuring the attendance of witnesses, and insuring that they shall give evidence, we retain the law as it stands now in reference to indictable offences, and also retain the existing law as to summary jurisdiction. In other words, the modus operandi will be the same as now in the case of indictable offences, and also the same as now in offences liable to be dealt with summarily. We provide, by a slight amendment in the drafting of the clause later on, to give all the protection that is needed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I admit the importance of the statement which has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but it does not quite meet our views. He says that, in regard to indictable offences, the procedure will be the procedure at present provided for the case of indictable offences when a prisoner is charged before the magistrates. I quite admit that that statement has met the point raised by my hon. Friend; but, as the section stood, a man could be arrested in the first instance, although the offence inquired into was an offence punishable summarily. But the point I am raising is a different point. The point I make is this. At present, when a preliminary examination takes place before the magistrates relating to an indictable offence, what may happen is
  1306
  that the examination may only last a short time; but it is unquestionably in the power of the magistrate to arrest any witness and keep him in custody until the time arrives for examining him. That may be perfectly reasonable where you have a prisoner charged, and where, therefore, it is presumed that the hearing of the charge will only occupy a short time; but it would be grossly unreasonable, as has happened in secret inquiries before, if such inquiries are to last for weeks and months. When an inquiry is likely to last for an indefinite period of time, it is unreasonable that the Government should have such a power to arrest all witnesses in advance, and retain every one of them in custody until the prisoner has been arrested and charged. The fact is that a day may be fixed for the commencement of the inquiry, and, having fixed a day, the Government may immediately arrest every person they contemplate examining, and the inquiry may then last for weeks and months, as the preliminary inquiry concerning the Phœnix Park murders did. It is unreasonable that, during all that time, they should have power to keep every witness in custody under the pretext that the stage of the inquiry had not yet arrived at which it would be convenient to examine them. What I would suggest is that where the Government arrest a witness, and when they do not propose to examine him immediately, they may give such witness the option of entering into recognizances, with proper security, to come up at any stage of the investigation they may want his evidence. In that way they would dispense with the necessity of keeping him in custody for any length of time.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Before this Amendment is disposed of, I wish to express my dislike to the use of the word "warrant" altogether. I do not see why the Government should not accept the words of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. Reference has been made to the Act of 1883, and the words in that Act are "in the prescribed form." All the witnesses were to be summoned "in the prescribed form," and if any hon. Member has any doubt upon the subject, I am in a position to furnish him with a copy of the prescribed form in that respect. This Bill, when

  1307
  it becomes an Act, will be successful, or a failure, in proportion to the confidence which the people have in its administration; and I will say this—that if a general power of arrest is retained in the Act, it will have the effect of defeating the object of the Act itself. It will inspire witnesses with a certain amount of alarm, and will be looked upon as a regular system of body-snatching. Indeed, the Bill might be fittingly termed a "Body-snatching Bill," and the Government might employ Buffalo Bill and his Indians with their lassoes to hunt down the unfortunate people of Ireland whom they desire to use as witnesses. A witness, if he gets a proper summons in a proscribed form, will be able to guard against being taken from his daily labour at an inconvenient moment; whereas, if he is arrested by warrant, and brought before a Resident Magistrate, and kept in durance even for only a limited period, he might lose his employment. This, I am afraid, would generally be the case under the operation of the clause as it now stands. I can say, from my experience of the past, that the issue of a summons in a proscribed form would be very much better than to give the Government the unlimited power of arrest which, they are anxious to obtain. I must say that, until the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had delivered himself of his first speech on this clause, I certainly did not understand that it was to take the form in which it now presents itself. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will persist in his Amendment, because I am sure that it will give the people some kind of confidence in the operation and administration of the Act; whereas, if it is allowed to remain in its present shape, it will undoubtedly have the effect of defeating the object the Government have in view.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Act of 1882 provided that in all cases the attendance of witnesses should be procured by summons. The Attorney General for Ireland says the Government are not prepared to include a similar provision in the present Bill, and yet he has boasted of the magnificent success of the Act of 1882 in the case of the Phoenix Park murders. That being the case, and the proceeding under that Act having been by summons, I think we are justified in
  1308
  demanding that at least the provisions of this Bill should be placed on a level with those of the Act of 1882. My proposal is to insert the words "summoned in the prescribed manner," and then we might have the same guarantee that everything would be right. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why he is not willing to give us now what was considered sufficient in the Act of 1882?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I admit that it will require words to be added, in order to show that the procedure applicable to indictable offences is to be extended to offences punishable by summary jurisdiction. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that Section 13 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act provides a certain mode of procedure in cases punishable upon summary conviction, and a certain other mode of procedure where the offence is an indictable offence. It certainly seems to me that, inasmuch as we have got the two classes of offences, the right course is to apply both modes of procedure, whether it may be by summons or warrant, in order to provide that both indictable offences, and offences capable of being dealt with by summary jurisdiction, shall be treated in the corresponding manner.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have often heard this Bill paralleled with the Bill of the right hon. Member for Derby, and therefore it is only reasonable that we should seek to have it safeguarded by putting into it the same provision. Will hon. Members observe the way in which the 3rd sub-section is drawn, at line 24—
  "A witness examined under this section shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer there to may criminate, or tend to criminate, himself; hut any statement made by any person in answer to any question put to him on any examination under this section shall not, except in the case of an indictment, or other criminal proceeding for perjury, be admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding, civil or criminal."
  Every protection which was afforded by the Act of 1882 is omitted from this section. I say that the proposals of the Government are most unreasonable, and I regret that our objections to this clause should have been met in this way. We ask that a witness shall receive a summons before he is brought up before

  1309
  a magistrate, in the same way as was provided in the Act of 1882. Why should we have a less amount of safeguard and security here in a Bill which is to be permanent in its operation than we had in a measure which was only to be in operation for three years? I admit that although in the Act of 1882 the safeguard of a summons was provided, this safeguard itself was most terribly abused, and that the grossest irregularities were committed under the Act. It is because such mischief and irregularity were committed that we desire to introduce precautions. Surely it is unreasonable that there should be less safeguards in regard to the permanent law of the country than those which were intended to apply to a temporary Act of the Legislature?
  MR. ANDERSON: I must protest against the way in which the Act of 1882 has been used. It was stated, at a political banquet on Saturday night, that three weeks had been expended in discussing the first eight lines of this clause, which are identical with the Act of 1882. That statement was made by the Prime Minister; but nobody knows better than the Prime Minister that, as far as the Act of 1882 is concerned, one-half of the Members of this House were not Members at the time it passed, and are in no way responsible for its provisions. I cannot conceive why, in the face of that fact, and also of the fact that that Act was for a temporary purpose and to last only for three years, and that it is Sought to make this Bill a permanent measure imposing a rigid system of permanent inquisition, the Prime Minister could have been induced to make the observations he is reported to have made. Further than that, a new constituency has been created, which was pledged at the last election to oppose a Coercion Bill. We have heard, over and over again, that this clause has been drawn in conformity with the Act of 1882. What, then, is their possible excuse for endeavouring to make its provisions so much more stringent than those of the Act of 1882? Their whole course is indefensible, and I trust the Attorney General for Ireland will feel that there is no justification for making this measure so much more stringent than the Act of 1882.
  MR. CHANCE: I must complain of the way in which this clause of the Bill has been drafted. It does not seem
  1310
  that the ordinary method of drafting a Bill has been followed in this case; but it would appear that a special method has been followed, with a view of concealing what the real object of the clause is. The clause, as drafted, was made to appear to be as innocent as possible, so that when it was read by Members who did not happen to be English and Irish legal Members, they would naturally say —" Well, there is nothing much in this clause, for it is practically identical with the existing Scotch law." But there is hardly a word in it which is intelligible to any man who is not a lawyer, and the power of imprisoning witnesses under the Petty Sessions Act for non-indictable offences seems to have been scarcely appreciated. If hon. Members will look at the Petty Sessions Act, they will find that the form of summons is proscribed, and not only that the name of the prisoner is stated, but that the nature of the evidence is very clearly set out. That cannot be done when there is no prisoner in custody. I can well understand why the Government object to have anything done under this Bill in a prescribed form. We know that the generality of Resident Magistrates are drawn from stupid and unsuccessful half-pay military and naval officers, and we can imagine the way in which they may be induced to fill up a warrant. It is for the purpose of preventing these men from having the real responsibility which ought to attach to a Justice of the Peace in issuing a summons or warrant that the Government fight so shy of anything like a proscribed form. If there is anything the Irish people like it is law, let alone justice. If you are to deprive them of justice, at any rate they like some form of law to justify you in doing so, because they have an idea that they are entitled to take advantage of any mistake of the law. The Government desire to give them no excuse of that kind, but to empower a Resident Magistrate, at 10 or 11 o'clock at night, after he may have been boozing with the land agent, to scribble his signature on a warrant! We want to have something beyond that —something which may, when the powers of the magistrate have been wrongfully exercised, be used to obtain judgment against a half-pay military and naval officer, or a full-pay Constabulary officer, who may have done something that is illegal.
  MR. CLANCY: The excuse which has been made for this part of the clause is that witnesses in Ireland, if summoned to attend before a magistrate, would run away. I should like to know whether the experience which the Government have obtained in Ireland bears out that assertion? I have yet to learn that any witness whom it was proposed to examine under the Act of 1882 actually ran away. It is desirable, at the same time, to draw attention to a remark of the Attorney General for Ireland, that this clause is to be extended not only to serious crimes, such as murder and attempt to murder, but to the Plan of Campaign. What the Attorney General virtually asserts is that the priests of Ireland would run away from this inquiry. I do not wish to misrepresent him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has implied in this House that persons who have taken part in advocating the Plan of Campaign, including the priests of Ireland, the loading farmers, and other persons who are engaged in industrial occupations, will run away from this inquiry. I think that that is an insult to the Irish priests, and that the allegation ought not to be passed over without some notice being taken of it. The charge itself is perfectly absurd and ridiculous. The priests of Ireland who have taken part in the Plan of Campaign will not flinch one inch from any inquiry the Government may think fit to institute. We know what will take place. Say a meeting takes place of delegates from particular estates in the town hall of some place. A list will be taken of all the priests, laymen, and Members of Parliament who attend that meeting. Each of them will be served with a warrant, when the landlords have had time to consult the authorities of Dublin Castle and to make arrangements by which a posse of police may be sent to their houses, under the pretence that their evidence may be necessary in a preliminary inquiry. I certainly regard the defence of the clause as a greater insult to the Irish people than the clause itself.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No allusion has been made either as to priests, or to the propriety of drawing a cordon around a district, and arresting every person within it. The Government have simply given an answer to an argument which has been advanced with considerable
  1312
  force by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I would venture to ask the Committee to come now to a decision upon this Amendment, which has been fully argued upon both sides, and upon which the Government feel it their duty to take a stand. I trust that the Committee will be allowed to come to a decision upon the question which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I propose to withdraw the Amendment, and move to insert words providing for the examination of witnesses appearing on summons.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words on summons."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am in favour of some provision being introduced to meet the separate point as to the possibility of indefinite detention. I think, however, that the First Lord of the Treasury is quite justified in saying that the matter has been fully argued. We have heard all that the Government wish to say, and I hope the Committee will now be disposed to go to a Division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 226: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
  On the Motion of Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Amendment made, in page 1, line 13, by leaving out "appearing before him," and inserting "whom he has reason to believe to be capable of giving material evidence concerning such offence."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I propose to leave out the word "may "in line 13, and substitute for it the word "shall." This Amendment, although a matter of verbiage, is of the greatest importance when we come to consider its effect with regard to the person accused. I wish the magistrate to be compelled to take the depositions, in writing, of the witnesses examined at the preliminary inquiries, because the witness is entitled to have the benefit of any admission that may be made. The noble Lord the

  1313
  Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the Under Secretary for India, and the Solicitor General for England will remember that on a former occasion they voted against us on the question with regard to the Maamtrasna trials on the ground that the informations had been suppressed. Our case in the Maamtrasna debate was that there were certain depositions taken which were in the prisoners favour, and which were suppressed by George Bolton and others. In this case, if the deposition is taken at all the least thing we can ask is that the prisoner shall have the advantage of the depositions. It would be a most unreasonable thing to allow the magistrate to ransack the entire country side, to take evidence from all kinds of persons which may perhaps tend in favour of the accused person unless the evidence is put on record, because if it be not put on record the prisoner will get no benefit from the inquiry at all. Surely what we want to do is to test the guilt or innocency of the accused—to arrive at the truth. But the object of the Government in Ireland is not to get at the truth, but to prove a case against a particular individual, and that is what the Gentlemen I have mentioned voted against on a former occasion. They voted against the suppression of the depositions. Now, I think it is only reasonable when men are examined, and it would conduce to the interests of justice if the magistrates were compelled to take, the deposition of everyone whom they summoned. This is certainly not an unreasonable proposal, and if it were adopted the Government could not be accused of doing what was done in the Maamtrasna ease. It is only a matter of detail, and having thus placed it before the minds of the Government, I trust that the Attorney General for England will see his way to agree to the Amendment which I now move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out "may," and insert "shall." —(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: This Amendment does not commend itself to us. It would be wrong to impose beforehand on the magistrate the oblige-
  1314
  tion to taking the deposition of a witness about whom he would know nothing. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why should he call them?] It would, of course, be impossible to say beforehand who should be called and who not, and in our opinion, therefore, this is a matter which should be left to the magistrate.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Suppose that a witness maintains that he knows nothing about the matter in question at the examination; and then suppose, on the other hand, that he says afterwards—"I know something about it," because he has got £100 from the Resident Magistrate, the person accused is not to have the benefit of the original statement of the witness. A man may have £10, £50, or £100 given him after the inquiry and then come forward and swear as in the Maamtrasna ease. We want to get his original, his untainted statement placed on record. Surely it is not too much to ask that the prisoner shall have the benefit of the man's confession of ignorance. The Government says it is giving too much trouble to the Resident Magistrate to require that he should place the evidence on record; but, if it is not too much trouble for him to summon the man, it is not too much trouble for him to take down his original statement of ignorance. Here is an important Amendment, and its importance was confessed by the Solicitor General for England when he voted in reference to the Maamtrasna inquiry. Persons may make a statement which they afterwards enlarge and amplify, and if the original statement were introduced at the trial, it would, perhaps, be found that they had contradicted their former statement. What we ask is, that the statement made at the initial stage shall, in some shape or form, be recorded; yet the Government refuse this. Is it in the interest of truth that they refuse it? I think this Amendment ought to approve itself to the minds of hon. Members who do not want these convictions to be the result of blood-money. I thought that the Maamtrasna trial would have burned itself into the hearts of Tory Members— I thought it would have fixed itself in the minds of the Solicitor General for England, the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, and the Under Secretary for India. There was a distinct case where, if the original depositions had been introduced, a number of men would

  1315
  not have been hung and sent to penal servitude. The Government with hold those depositions, and they were condemned for so doing by the Solicitor General; and now our request is refused that the original as well as the subsequent statement of witnesses should be introduced. I must say that it is not in the interest of justice, but in the interest of injustice that this Amendment is rejected.
  MR. CLANCY: In confirmation of what has been said by my hon. Friend, the Member for North Longford, I wish to point out that only a short time ago, a policeman named O' Halloran, in the County of Clare, attempted to bribe a man into giving manufactured evidence by giving him a ten pound note, and the money is now in the hands of the Irish Party. We have no doubt that this kind of thing will be often done when this Act comes into operation.
  MR. MOLLOY: I am somewhat astonished at the way in which the Attorney General for England met this Amendment. First of all he shirked the question altogether. He said that the witness might give evidence which shows that he knows nothing about the case. But that is not the point; our point is that he may give evidence which will show the innocence of the accused. But I go further than this. The Attorney General said that because a witness may know nothing about the subject of inquiry it is of no use to take the deposition of such a man. How can the Attorney General, or anyone else, tell what the value of the evidence may be to the other side. The fact that a man brought up for examination has clearly shown that he knows nothing of the case, may be of the most vital importance to the person accused.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: This Amendment is of so little importance to the clause that I do not think Her Majesty's Government will offer further opposition to it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the word deposition should be inserted in line 13.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I will consider whether the word "deposition" should be inserted hereafter. In the meantime I think it would be desirable to substitute the word "statement."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "deposition" and insert "statement.
  "Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." —(Sir Richard Webster.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have no objection if the Government provide that these depositions will be available in Court, and that the word "statement" should be reserved.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On the Motion of Mr. MARUM, Amendment made, in page 1, line 14, after "witness," by inserting "other than any person confessing himself or herself to be the offender, or the husband or wife of such person."
  On the Motion of Mr. T. M. HEALY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 14, after "by," by inserting "his own."
  MR. MARUM: I propose after the word "recognizance" in line 17 to insert the words "provided that any witness so appearing shall be entitled to have present at any such examination or other proceeding counsel or attorney on his or her behalf." I point out that this is permissible in the case of witnesses tinder the 20 and 21st of Vict, in the Probate Court. It may be alleged that these are civil and not criminal proceedings. But as they may lead to criminal proceedings, I say that they are analogous to cases under this clause. The clause is of so severe a character that I propose to limit it by the introduction of these words. I will read a very short extract from the work of Mr. Best, a high authority on evidence, to show the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings and the danger that it involves—
  "In the mediæval tribunals of the Civil and Canon laws, the inquisitorial principle wag essentially dominant. And this has so far survived that in many Continental tribunals at the present day every criminal trial commences with a rigorous interrogation of the accused by the Judge or other presiding officer. Nor is this interrogation usually conducted with fairness towards the accused. Facts are garbled or misrepresented, questions assuming his guilt are not only put, but pressed and repeated in various shapes; and hardly any means are left untried to compel him either directly or by implication, to avow something to his prejudice. This is no chimerical danger. By artful questioning and working on their feelings, weak-minded individuals can be made to confess or impliedly admit almost anything; and to resist

  1317
  continued importunities to acknowledge even falsehood, requires a mind of more than average firmness."
  Mr. Best gives an instance of the trial of the Duke de Praslin, before the Chamber of Peers in France, in 1847, which, with the permission of the committee, I will read. The Duke was charged with the murder of his wife, and the following is part of his interrogation by the President —
  "Was she (the deceased) not stretched upon the floor when you struck her for the last time?
  "Why do you ask me such a question?
  "You must have experienced a most distressing moment when you say upon entering the chamber that you were covered with the blood which you had just shed, and which you were obliged to wash off?
  "Those marks of blood have been altogether misinterpreted. I did not wish to appear before my children with the blood of their mother upon me.
  "You are very wretched to have committed this crime? (The accused makes no answer, but appears absorbed).
  "Have you received bad advice which impelled you to this crime?
  "I have received no advice. People do not give advice on such a subject."
  I give you this instance of procedure on the other side of the water, to show that there be some protection for the persons who come under the operation of this clause. The Attorney General knows that this is the very reverse of our procedure, and that there is not a syllable of our jurisprudence that does not shout against it. Again, I remind the Committee that torture was permitted by the Scotch law down to the year 1708, and I bring this clause forward as an instance of the Government having reverted to that Scotch law. I do not propose that the witness should be represented by counsel, although that appears to be pointed at in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). I simply ask that counsel shall be present at the examination. Under the Bankruptcy Acts attornies are permitted to attend, and under the Petty Sessions Act the Justices cannot exclude counsel. I have had some experience in this matter; I have investigated a number of cases, and I tell Her Majesty's Government that this clause, in my opinion, will be perfectly useless. What you want hero is not the discovery of persons who have committed offences, but the discovery of evidence for the purpose of prosecution. And I remind
  1318
  the Government that the name of "informer" is odious in Ireland. I myself committed a man a year ago for a social murder of a bad type. Before the depositions wore completed I told the prisoner that if he wished to ask any questions he might do so; he turned to me and said—"At all events, I am not an informer." We have been told that the Irish people are supposed to have received "a double dose of original sin," and that this is the reason why they declined to give evidence. But it is not so. It is the effect of your penal laws. Where a son is required to give evidence against his father, and a daughter against her mother, it is felt that social life is invaded, and it is from that cause that the objection to give information arises. I ask if you can remedy that by this clause? The only way you can remedy it is by giving the people confidence in the administration of justice—not abstract, but actual justice Your tribunals, so far from giving confidence in the administration of justice, will increase tenfold the objection of the people to give information, and therefore I say you are beginning at the wrong end by enacting this inquisitorial clause. You say that you were aided in the case of the Phœnix Park murder by the Crimes Act; but that is not a fact. There was an objection to give evidence, and I say that this Bill will intensify rather than remove the feeling which exists in the breasts of the people of Ireland. It is because I see that the Government are obstinately bent on carrying this Bill that I am trying to cut down and limit the operation of the clause; because, undoubtedly—and I say it in the interest of justice—if you attempt to obtain evidence by these inquisitorial means you will certainly compel the people to withhold evidence, which would not be the case if your tribunals were such as to inspire them with confidence. I have given Notice of my intention to move the rejection of the clause altogether; but I put this Amendment formally, and I ask the Government to make the small concession that that which is enacted by the Petty Sessions Act shall be applicable to this clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "provided that any witness so appearing shall be

  1319
  entitled to have present at any such examination or other proceeding counsel or attorney on his or her behalf."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I will endeavour to make it clear why it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. In the Act to which I believe he has referred the attendance of counsel is allowed for the prisoner alone. There is no power for counsel or attorney to be present on behalf of any witness. I do not want to go back on the arguments already used; but I think I may say, à fortiori, if there is no charge made against any person the necessity for the presence of counsel is less than when a person is charged. The Committee will be aware that the statements made before the magistrates are not to be used against the witness in any shape or form except in the case of a prosecution for perjury; they cannot be used in cross-examination for the purpose of showing that the witness has made a statement and afterwards gone back from that statement. That has been stated more than once by the Attorney General for Ireland, and we intend to make it clear that these depositions shall not be used in any way except in the case of a prosecution for perjury. Therefore, it can not be urged that there is no protection for a witness who is examined under this clause by the magistrates. The first objection of the hon. Member is founded on the 31st section of the Probate (Ireland) Act, which I believe corresponds with the English Act; but if the Committee remembers why this was enacted, they will see that there is no connection between the two cases. The other objection of the hon. Gentleman is founded on the practice in bankruptcy. Now, a bankrupt is supposed in many cases to be the enemy of all his creditors; it may be that he is concealing part of his estate, and that there are a number of actions pending against him, and therefore when a bankrupt is being examined, inasmuch as all the creditors are to have a shot at him, so to speak, it is thought right that he should have counsel or attorney attending in his behalf. But, taking the whole range of the Criminal and Civil Law, except in these two instances there is no authority or precedent for counsel or attorney being present on behalf of a witness. They are not allowed to take any part, and when
  1320
  counsel are present it is without the knowledge of the Court. Again, seeing that these inquiries are for the purpose of getting at the truth, and not for the purpose of proving the guilt of individuals, I gay it would be very undesirable that a third person should be present. On the other hand, their presence is not required for the protection of the persons examined, as has been shown. It is there fore impossible that Her Majesty's Government can accept this Amendment, which, while it is not required for the protection of witnesses, would interfere with the operation of the clause.
  MR. ANDERSON: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has not quite covered the whole of this question, because there is another case in which witnesses are entitled to have counsel and solicitors to protect them. I refer to examinations under the Companies' Act. Under the 115th section of that Act this is provided for where information is sought with regard to the winding up of Companies. The section is to the effect that the Court may summon before it any officer of the Company or person known to have in his possession the names of persons who are supposed to be indebted to the Company, and the Court may also summon any person whom the Court may deem capable of giving information as to the effects of the Company. As I have said, under that section the witness is entitled to be protected by solicitor or counsel, and this is of daily occurrence. Further, in bankruptcy examinations, it is customary not only for the bankrupt but witnesses to be protected in this way. This, also, is the everyday practice in the Bankruptcy Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no precedent of this kind in criminal cases; but the object of the clause, as I understand it, is the obtaining of information, not the conviction of witnesses. I cannot understand where will be the difficulty of getting information if the witness is allowed to be protected by counsel or attorney—on the contrary, I think the adoption of this Amendment might facilitate the getting of information. Again, these powers are to be exercised by persons who have no great experience in legal matters, and, that being so, I do not understand why we should object to counsel or attorney being present to assist them and see that there is fair play. I shall regret to find that, after

  1321
  further consideration, the Attorney General still objects to this Amendment. I believe he will see that it will not at all interfere with the operation of the clause, the object of which is to get information. It is not sought to convict anyone on the evidence taken under this clause, but it may nevertheless occur that something may be got out of a witness in the examination which may be prejudicial to him. You may get something out of a witness with regard to the Plan of Campaign, for instance, and although you do not want to use his deposition against him, you will be able through his evidence to summon someone else. For these reasons, I regard the clause as most dangerous, and trust that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny will be accepted by the Government.
  MR. MOLLOY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that this Amendment is unnecessary because a witness does not require protection; but I think there will be cases in Ireland where this protection will be necessary. Suppose that a landlord at the present time has a civil action against some of his tenants, and suppose that a near relative of the landlord is a Resident Magistrate. In that case the landlord may set this clause in motion against his tenants, and obtain this inquisitorial examination. The landlord wants evidence against the tenants in civil actions against them. You will probably have a near relative of a landlord carrying out this inquisitorial examination; and if the witness called before this person has no one to protect him, questions affecting a civil action may be asked, and information also may be obtained, which has nothing whatever to do with the question of crime or offences—questions which would be used merely for the purpose of assisting the landlord in some action against his tenants. Well, the Attorney General says that a witness does not require anyone to assist him. It seems to mo that the witness most decidedly does require this assistance. If there was a solicitor or counsel attending on behalf of a witness, he would not interfere so long as the examination was a genuine and honest one for the purpose of obtaining evidence with regard to a particular crime, and such protection to the witness would do no harm to the object we have in view. In the case I have mentioned—and I take that as one
  1322
  example within my own knowledge, and no doubt there are many such in Ireland —this Act would be used, not for a legitimate purpose, but simply and solely for the purpose of exacting evidence from the witness to be used on a future occasion by the landlord against the tenants. The Government think counsel should not attend on behalf of the witness, then will they tell me how the witness is to be protected under the circumstances I have mentioned? The Government cannot say that I wish these powers to be exercised in such a dishonest manner as I have indicated, and, therefore, if they l will not allow counsel or solicitor to attend on behalf of a witness, will the Attorney General for Ireland state in what way the witness is to be protected in that which is solely his private interest? I hope the Attorney General will give some hint or suggestion as to how a witness is to be protected under these circumstances.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I suppose the Government, in proposing this section, desire that it should be worked. If the object of the Government is that the section should be worked, they should take steps to see that it is worked in some reasonable way. I was rather surprised to hear the Attorney General say that the examination will not be used against the person examined. Why, Sir, it will be used in a most serious manner. It will be used in this way—supposing the person who has been examined is thought by the Government to have stated what is untrue, that person for that statement so made in examination can be charged with perjury. If a man has to give evidence on the chance of being here after charged with perjury, is it not reasonable that he should take steps to have that examination made in a proper manner, and to see that proper questions are put to him—that questions are not put to him in a loading form, and that questions are put to him which concern the precise offence in respect of which he is examined? Surely a witness has the greatest possible interest in having his examination conducted in a reasonable and legal manner, and directed to the precise point, and the precise point only, which is mentioned in his summons. Therefore, I maintain to say that the witness has no interest in the matter, or in what he states in

  1323
  his examination is simply begging the question. The very object of a witness having to be examined on oath is that the evidence may be used against him hereafter on a charge of perjury.
  MR. FINLAY (, &c): I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. If it is introduced the whole section will be rendered useless. How would it work in practice? Why, what would happen would be this—in many cases if this Amendment were introduced, a professional gentleman would appear at the inquiry for every witness, and would object to every question which was put, and raise an argument upon every question. In this way the object of the section, which is to obtain information, would be absolutely defeated.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that Liberal Unionist Gentlemen might very well hold their tongues upon this matter. It goes without saying that they are opposed to all our Amendments, and, therefore, their intervention in this discussion becomes nothing more nor less than Obstruction. We know before hand what they would say, consequently the only effect of their speaking is to waste time. The hon. and learned Gentleman the English Attorney General has not dealt with this most important question as to the asking of irrelevant questions, and the whole matter turns upon whether the man who puts a question to a witness is to be at the same time the judge of its propriety, and, if it is not answered to his satisfaction, be the person to send that witness to gaol? That was the question raised in the Bankruptcy Court in the case of Father Keller. What Father Keller was put in gaol for was this. He was asked— "Were you in a madhouse in Youghal on a particular day at a particular hour?" He replied—" I decline to answer." He might have been asked with equal propriety whether he had taken a bath, or whether he had indulged in a walk by the seaside on a certain day. The question raised in Court was that the inquiries addressed to the witnesses should be relevant to the issue. The Bankruptcy Judge departed from his usual practice, and had allowed a barrister to be in attendance to watch the interests of the witness. The Counsel objected to this question as an irrelevant one. If the Government do not assent to this
  1324
  Amendment, which seems to me to be a very reasonable one, I would put down an Amendment that if a witness considers a question irrelevant, and the magistrate insists upon an answer, the witness shall have an appeal to the Attorney General for Ireland or to a Court as to whether the question is irrelevant or not, and whether he ought to be required to answer it. It seems to me that when hon. Gentlemen connected with Scotland ask the Government to stand to their guns, they should remember that in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal presides over the inquiry, and that another gentleman asks the questions. ["No, no!"] Well, it is so laid down in all the books of authority. The Irish Chief Secretary has not written a book on the question; but there is a book written by "Mr. Macdonald" (the Lord Advocate), and we have had the temerity to look into that book, and have found that what I say is stated there. It may be bad law, but it is so stated in that book. I ask, will the Government do anything to remedy this defect? We are told a great deal about the law of Scotland, and that law of Scotland has been the ground upon which this section has been, to a large extent, supported. We are entitled to anticipate something of the kind I have mentioned occurring between the person who puts the question and the person who answers. Questions that are irrelevant some witnesses will refuse to answer, and we contend that there should be someone at the inquiry to decide as to the legality of the line of examination. If the Resident Magistrate chooses to ask a child whether it has been vaccinated, and the child refuses to answer, he might send it to prison. We complain that the Government have not addressed themselves to that question. We have a right to know who is to decide, when an important question is put, as to whether or not it is relevant and legal that a proper one ought to be put.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I merely rise to recall for a moment what the object of this Bill really is. The right hon. Gentlemen who sits on the Front Bench opposite always use the word "crime" in connection with it; but we have the word of a much more important person than anyone who sits on the Front Bench opposite as to what it is intended to cope with by this

  1325
  measure. I refer to Lord Salisbury. The noble Marquess says—"We have offered a measure to the other House to put a stop to certain combinations." In view of that most authoritative declaration that this Bill is meant to put a stop to certain combinations of tenants, which have been declared by an equally high authority to be their salvation, I think we cannot be too careful in dealing with the Amendments we are considering. I think the Amendment now before us is one that the Government ought in common justice to accept, looking at the object for which this Bill is brought forward.
  MR. P. J. POWER: As has been pointed out repeatedly, the gentlemen to be entrusted with the administration of this Act are gentlemen in whom we have and can have no confidence. They are political opponents to us, and we know from experience how the Act will be administered. Many of my hon. Friends have experience of the manner in which the Crimes Act was administered within the last three or four years. We had at that time a Government which had some pretence to being just; but I do not think that that term could in any way be applied to the Government we have now. We know that, when this Act is put in force, it will not be put in force to resist real criminals, but that it will be put in force to grapple with political opponents, and, consequently, I think that every safeguard should be used to Prevent a gross abuse of these powers. Now, as the Bill at present stands, this clause will apply not only to proclaimed districts where serious crime does exist, but also to unproclaimed districts. Witnesses may be summoned from any part of Ireland to give evidence before this inquisitorial Court, and it is certainly most reasonable that witnesses should be prevented from being insulted by Stipendiary Magistrates, who are only too prone to insult them. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for one of the Divisions of King's County, questions may be put to witnesses in this inquisitorial Court which may seriously affect the civil relations of the witnesses. He has given instances, and I venture to say that most of us, in our different constituencies, could give instances, where civil actions are pending against men against whom the provisions of this Bill
  1326
  will certainly be enforced. It is assumed that leading questions will not be asked. I should like the Committee to tell me how ignorant men will be able to discriminate between questions which are leading and questions which are not leading, or how they will be able to tell what questions will injure them in their private affairs, and which will not. No matter how this question is looked at, we think that, for the safeguarding of the interests of the witnesses who are to be examined before these inquisitorial Courts, it is absolutely necessary that these witnesses should be provided with the protection of either an attorney or a counsel.
  MR. FLYNN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England has quoted the Petty Sessions Act in support of the Government proposal; but I venture to say that nothing contained in that Act with regard to the non-attendance of counsel or witnesses is a precedent for the Star Chamber inquiry contemplated by this measure. There is not the least analogy between the Petty Sessions Act and these Star Chamber inquiries. It must be remembered that these will be held with closed doors. There will be no reporters present, and there will be no possibility of anyone knowing what is going on. In the Petty Sessions Court, however, reporters are in attendance, so that everyone knows perfectly well what is going on. If witnesses are subjected to unfair pressure there is the adequate protection of public opinion to deal with the case. Therefore that argument of the Attorney General for England does not hold water. He says, further, that in his view no protection is required for witnesses. Now, this is a very strong assumption, totally unwarranted and unsupported by the present state of things in Ireland. It is totally unwarranted and unsupported by what has occurred under the Crimes Act, 1882, for the past four or five years; it is totally unwarranted and unsupported by the character and reputation of the men who are to administer this Act. No protection, forsooth, for the witnesses! Why, where inquiries have been held in Cork we have had respectable men examined, on whom no possible suspicion of criminality could rest—gentlemen of as high a character, nay, a far higher character than the men who tried them. We have had gentle

  1327
  men in Cork examined who were taken away from their business for five or six days together, large traders, and others of all kinds; and irrelevant and tedious and impertinent questions have been put to them. I know of cases in which insulting questions were asked of a man, which had no relevancy to the point at issue. We knew perfectly well at the time that the object of the investigation was not to discover crime, but to find out the secrets of the National League; and assure as this Act is before the Committee at the present moment, so surely will this clause be put into operation for similar purposes. This present clause, I feel confident, will be put into operation not for the purpose of detecting crime or so-called offences, but, as an hon. Member above the Gangway a short time ago stated—quoting a very high authority— for the purpose of putting down combinations. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England knows nothing whatever about the condition of things in Ireland, or he would not have said that there is no protection required for witnesses who will be examined under this clause. In view of what has occurred already in Ireland, in view of what has occurred under the Crimes Act of 1882, and in view of the fact that witnesses will be examined by hostile people on information supplied by spies, and in view of the fact that they will be examined hostilely and sternly, and by anything but a fair and impartial Judge presiding on the Bench, it is utterly impossible that questions unfair and altogether irrelevant will not be asked. We distrust the impartiality of the tribunal, and we say if those inquiries are to be held, if at the present time the Government think it necessary to revive these powers, which are a disgrace to civilization and which are pointed out by historians of to-day as one of the blots on the former civilization of this and other countries—if these powers are to be revived in Ireland under a Government notoriously hostile and unfriendly to the population and to combinations of the people, we ask that, at any rate, those unfortunate people who may not have committed any offence or crime shall be afforded that protection which this clause does not afford, and that their ignorance shall be defended by the presence of some competent legal
  1328
  advocate in Court to watch the course of the inquiry.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Once more I would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I fully admit their right to make a protest in a matter of this kind; but the Government have stated the ground upon which they feel it impossible to accept the Amendment, and I venture to think that the arguments which have since been addressed to them are not of sufficient weight to induce us to alter our determination. The constant repetition of arguments against the attitude of the Government will not advance the view that hon. Gentlemen take. Hon. Gentlemen are simply repeating again and again statements which have already been presented to us sufficiently and eloquently by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I trust, therefore, that we may be allowed to divide without devoting any more time to this discussion.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the success the right hon. Gentleman met with when he made his last appeal has induced him somewhat to abuse his position. When the right hon. Gentleman, on the last occasion, appealed to us to come to a Division, we had had speech after speech from the Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite, and what is more important, we had a promise of concessions made on the matter under discussion, therefore that is no parallel to the present case, and what has already taken place I think somewhat detracts from the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is an important matter, and one that should be somewhat further pressed on the Government, who at present have only put forward one of their Members to reply to the repeated arguments that have been pressed upon them from this side of the House. The relevancy and propriety of this Amendment appears to me to depend upon two considerations. The first is this, there is a necessity for the protection of witnesses who may be examined on these inquiries that they should be represented at these inquiries in some legal way, and consequently the granting of such a protection cannot in any way detract from the results which may be expected from the holding of these inquiries. It appears to

  1329
  me that both these questions may be properly answered in a way favourable to the Amendment. In the first place, could any good reason be urged, or any proper grounds put forward, for the proposition that some protection is required for witnesses who may be examined on these inquiries. Speaker after speaker has got up on this side of the House, and has pointed out that very serious dangers indeed may arise to witnesses from the want of such protection. Let me call attention to this fact that the Government have already admitted, by accepting an Amendment from this side of the House to the effect that if a witness is a person who has committed a crime, or is the wife of a person who has committed a crime, it shall not be competent for the magistrate to proceed further with the examination, and that the witness should be immediately discharged there from. I ask, therefore, what good object is to be served by resisting the insertion of these words in the clause, and by refusing to give these persons the protection which has been pointed out against the power of the magistrates holding the inquiry. There is nothing to prevent a magistrate proceeding in his inquiry after the witness has admitted that he has been party to an offence, notwithstanding what the Government has said. It must be remembered that witnesses who may be examined may be ignorant persons who have not made a study of this Bill, and who may not know what their rights are—persons who would, therefore, be absolutely at the mercy of the Resident Magistrates holding the inquiry. Therefore it would, in this state of things, be in the power of any ignorant, incompetent, or malignant Resident Magistrate to proceed in the teeth of the Act, and examine persons under these circumstances though the House has solemnly declared that such examination should not be pursued. Let us take the case that an hon. Friend of mine mentioned, in which it would be in the power of the Resident Magistrate holding the inquiry under this clause to abuse his position for the purpose of extracting from witnesses evidence not at all relevant to the offence being inquired into, but which could be used against the witness in civil proceedings. That appears to me to be a most impor-
  1330
  tant case, and upon the question which it involves the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has omitted to notice that we have received no reply from any of his Colleagues sitting on that Bench. I venture to say that dozens of cases could be mentioned in which it would be in the power of a presiding magistrate to act in a manner grossly unfair, and to put question after question improperly to witnesses against which witnesses would and could have no protection such as would be conferred upon them by the attendance of a solicitor or counsel to watch over their interests. I think, as I have said, that this is a very important question, and before we go to a Division, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I think we are entitled to some answer from the Front Bench opposite. As to the question that arises—namely, would a court of justice suffer any defeat or detriment from the acceptance of this Amendment, or would any benefit which might be assumed to result from the adoption of this clause in its present form be in any way militated against by the witnesses being allowed to have an advocate present— I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is the only Member of the Government who told us what the view of the Government is on this matter. I would venture to suggest that no such interference would take place. He has not attempted to show how the presence of a solicitor or barrister could in any way militate against the success of the inquiry; he has not ventured to allege that the presence of such a person could be used in a way to prevent the course of justice, or to prevent this inquiry being held, or in any way to defeat the object with which such an inquiry would be held. He has contented himself with this one argument, that the proposal contained in this Amendment is contrary to precedent. Well, unfortunately the whole of the proposals of this Bill are of such a nature as will make it distinctly difficult to find precedents bearing upon them. The proposals of this measure are novel and unprecedented, and therefore it would be very hard to find any precedent for the Amendment we propose. Our proposals are unprecedented, because the provisions we are asking the Committee to amend are themselves unprecedented. I therefore contend that this Committee cannot take such

  1331
  an answer as that as conclusive on the Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: Hon. Gentlemen are in the habit of coming in about half-past 12 o'clock at night and sitting like mutes at a funeral until someone, without having heard a word of the debate, moves the cloture, when they go into the Lobby against us, we having throughout the early portion of the evening been speaking in support of our Amendments to empty Benches. Such a process seems to be taking place at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman says we are not to repeat our statements; but I would remind him that, owing to the mental construction of hon. Gentleman opposite, it needs five or six repetitions of an argument to hammer it into their heads. It is necessary to repeat our arguments over and over again before we can get anything from the Government. I think in a matter such as this we have a right to argue our case fully. The power contained in this clause in its present form is one which will enable the Resident Magistrates of Ireland to torture every witness that may be brought before them, and subject them to an inquisitorial investigation. Our proposal is that witnesses brought before these Resident Magistrates, should, before this torture is inflicted on them, have the benefit of legal advice, and we call upon the Government to put forth whatever shreds of argument they may have to justify their opposition to this reasonable demand. There is no reason why we should not discuss this matter. We desire, in discussing this proposal of the Government, to give to witnesses the benefit of professional advice and assistance, and that proposal of ours is opposed as unwarrantable by the Government who defend this clause by a number of legal advocates —seven, I think—who have spoken for them on this matter. Well, if the Government found it difficult to defend this clause except by calling in to their aid seven legal gentlemen who are paid large sums out of the pockets of the tax payers; I think the unfortunate people who will be brought for examination have as good a right to a legal opinion, for which they will pay out of their own pockets. Do the Government think that the liberties of witnesses can be more safely entrusted to Resident Magis-
  1332
  trates without legal assistance, than their arguments in favour of the clause can be presented to the House without legal assistance? I think the Resident Magistrate is at least as much likely to be benefited by an advocate appearing for the witnesses as the government is benefited by several legal gentlemen appearing in support of their proposals. I think the liberties of the Irish people are of more importance to this Committee than the dinners of hon. Members, and therefore we are determined to debate this question to the utmost.
  MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS: It seems to me that the Government would do well to accede to the wishes of the Irish Members in this matter. This is confessedly an exceptional proposal as far as the law of England and the practice of the law in Ireland are concerned, and it seems to me desirable in that state of things that every precaution should be taken to ensure that no unfair use should be made of the powers which are to be entrusted to gentlemen who in the main are absolutely without knowledge of legal matters. I should have thought that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as their principles are identical with the professed aims of the Government, would have been satisfied that this Amendment should have been introduced. I have had considerable experience of matters of this kind professionally, and I would ask what harm can be done by accepting this Amendment? If proper questions are asked by the magistrates, to whom these powers are given, of the witnesses before them, then the counsel or attorney appearing for such witnesses would have no right to interfere; and if improper questions are put them, it seems to me that the person whose evidence is to be made use of for the purpose of launching some case against some other person should have an opportunity of having competent advice afforded him. It need not necessarily follow that counsel should be employed in every case. I would appeal to the experience of English Law Officers of the Crown whether, in regard to bankruptcy inquiries, though it by no means follows that counsel appearing for persons are entitled to make a speech, or even entitled to cross- examine, there

  1333
  is not a great protection in having the advice of a legal gentleman as to the relevancy and propriety of questions which are put to witnesses. It is found to be very essential to have such advice in order that the witnesses may be satisfied that the investigation is being pursued in a manner within the scope of the Act. If, as we have been told, and as my own experience teaches me is likely to be the case, witnesses are called upon to give evidence who belong to the less educated and ignorant classes, what will be the state of things? Is it not necessary that they should have the protection of legal advice? I do not wish to protract this debate unduly, but I would press upon the Government the necessity of saying why they oppose this Amendment, or what harm the introduction of the words suggested would do to the legitimate operation of the Act. Here you have a Court inquiring into matters which are not within the limits of a specific indictment or the subject of a direct or specific charge. The inquiry under the clause will be a fishing inquiry, and as I have said, the only analogy in our law as to the inquiry is the inquiry which takes place under the law of bankruptcy, and there the attendance of an advocate, although his power is restricted, is admitted. As I have said, he is not allowed to speak, and he may not be allowed to cross-examine; but his presence is permitted, and he is allowed to give advice, and the mere fact of such advice being permitted is an encouragement to the witness, and also a protection. As the proceedings under this clause are of a private character, it is more than ever desirable that same person should be in attendance who would be able to carry out-of-doors a proper account of what took place before the magistrate. Of course we may take it for granted that respectable practitioners would be engaged for the witnesses, and it seems to me that the presence of such professional gentleman would be most desirable. I am at a loss to see what harm could accrue from the adoption of this Amendment, and I am extremely desirous that when exceptional legislation of this kind is adopted, all necessary precautions should be taken to secure its being administered in a fair manner. It is particularly essential, it seems to me, that every opportunity should be given
  1334
  for making a true statement out-of-doors of what takes place at this private inquiry; and I am sorry that the Government have not been able, in any way, to accede to the proposal which has now been made to them. In the case of a Division, I shall feel myself bound to vote against the Government.
  MR. O' DOHERTY: I should have liked to have asked the Government to consider one point in the examination with reference to which it is plainly desirable that a solicitor should be allowed to be present. I mean when the warrant for the committal is about to be made out. The Amendment says a solicitor should be present at the examination from beginning to end; but I would suggest, to meet the objections of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who say that the presence of a solicitor or a barrister would put an end to that privacy and secrecy which they think to be the essence of the whole clause, that the period at which the committal is about to be made out is the time above all others when it would be necessary that a counsel should be present representing the witness. Remember that these witnesses are not criminals. They are not brought up for trial, and they are, therefore, persons over whom the Committee should try to throw some protection. Take it that a time has come when a witness, who has been answering every question fairly and fully, says—"You are going too far," and refuses to say anything more. Take it that a time has come when he may say—"This is a matter involving my property or my character," or "This is an insulting question, and before I go any further I should like to consult a legal adviser," or "I think this is a question which should not be put, and I would like it to be put in the presence of a solicitor." If the Government cannot see their way to accept the spirit of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I think this is a time when they ought to indicate it. What are the powers of these gentlemen sitting there in absolute secrecy? To use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—"If the witness refuses to answer a question the magistrate may commit him." But supposing a question is put to him which he should not be called upon to answer. Without this Amendment there would be no possibility of

  1335
  the witness arguing with the magistrate. The mere fact that the magistrate has put a question and that the witness refuses to answer it, will be sufficient to ensure his committal. There will be no access so far as the witness and his friends are concerned, to the shorthand writers' notes. I ask, therefore, is it not fair that a witness should have some means of examining into the right, in certain instances, of exercising this immense power of committal. I would put it to the Committee, would it not be fair to give the witness a chance of saying, at a certain point—"Have you the right of exercising this power of committal? What have I done?" A man has no right to be troubled at all to give evidence unless he is supposed to have knowledge of guilt and is concealing it. This man should have a right to legal protection—it is a liberty which everybody possesses. Under this measure, a magistrate will have power to call upon witnesses to produce all kinds of papers and documents; and I want to know where this power will end, if we have not an Amendment such as this inserted in the clause? What may not a witness be asked to produce? He may be asked to produce his love letters. I know of nothing, as the clause is framed, to stop the course of the inquiry. The refusal to produce a single one of his private letters would, enable a magistrate to send him to gaol. And surely in such a matter as that a man should have the right to ask that he may have counsel, through whom he can say—"Have I not a right to refuse to produce these things?" It must be borne in mind that these witnesses will be examined before local people, in the different localities, and upon information supplied locally. They may be examined by the agents of their own landlords; and I want to ask if it is not right that they should have some protection against malice, against ill-will, against unfair questions, and against questions put with an ulterior motive. If the Government do not agree with the Amendment as proposed, let them adopt it in the modified form I have suggested. Surely, if the Head of the Government comes in and finds that we are so reasonable, we shall not, when in future he makes his strong appeals to the House, have strength enough to resist him. He speaks with such earnestness, when he gets in that humour, that
  1336
  we are bound to accede to his wishes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to accept the Amendment qualified in the way I propose.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: It appears to me that the 3rd sub-section of this clause will have an important influence on the opinions of the Committee in deciding on this Amendment. I would wish to discuss the sub-section as far as it bears on the importance of the admission of a solicitor or advocate to defend a witness. It might be urged that because—
  "A witness examined under this sub-section shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate, or tend to criminate, himself,"
  that, therefore, there is less necessity for the presence of an advocate; but I would point out that that sub-section is not passed, and may not be passed. It is not a fair method, in discussing a certain provision, to look ahead to another provision, and say that a certain course must be taken in order to avoid prejudicing what is to follow. We are entitled, I contend, to discuss this matter as though the 3rd sub-section were not in the Bill at all, and as if it were quite on the cards that it will not be passed. If then it should not be passed it would be a monstrous proposition that a witness, although not legally bound to answer a question which would criminate himself, yet should not have the right of having counsel to defend him from irrelevant questions. Whether the 3rd subsection is rejected or not, the question is whether irrelevant questions should be permitted. It is impossible for a witness to protect himself against a Resident Magistrate. It requires a qualified person, skilled in the practice of the law, to see what questions are proper and relevant, and what are not. As one practising in the Legal Profession, it has frequently been my duty to attend police courts before unpaid magistrates, and I can say, with the greatest confidence, there is no branch of the law on which these gentlemen have greater difficulty than on questions of the relevancy of evidence. All other matters they can get into, and do get into, very well. They can consider Acts of Parliament, and, to some extent, judge of cases put before them; but the rules of evidence, especially as to what questions are rele-

  1337
  vant and what are not, they are singularly unable to deal with. Unpaid magistrates do not seem to have the slightest glimmer of capacity for dealing with such subjects. A case came within my own knowledge, only a short time ago, where a principal witness against the accused was asked whether there was not a bitter feud existing between him and his family on the one hand, and the accused on the other, and the magistrate would not allow that question to be put on the ground that it was not relevant, though, of course, anyone knowing anything of the law, would know that it was most relevant to the credibility of the witness, Fortunately, there was a solicitor engaged in the case, and he insisted upon his right to put the question; and owing solely to his presence and his persistency the question was allowed to be put. But equally before these inquiries irrelevant questions will be put if a solicitor or a barrister is not allowed to be present. In passing a Coercion Bill of this kind into law, we ought always to bear in mind how previous Coercion Bills have been exercised in Ireland. This is a consideration that ought never be absent from our minds. We ought to consider how the Act of 1881 was worked —in fact, how all these Acts are worked. The Act of 1881 was worked upon information supplied by local partizans of the landlord and Conservative Party in the districts in which the Act was in operation. In one of the debates on that Bill I heard the hon. Member for Cork give an illustration of a number of tenants who had applied in a body for a reduction of rent; and the spokesman of the party was told by the agent—"I will have you in Kilmainham by tomorrow night." The hon. Member for Cork said that, as a matter of fact, that man was put into gaol within 24 hours.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was his name Crosbie?
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: Yes; that was the name. That was one of the cases in which Mr. Forster said that the Act could never be used. Mr. Forster, when he was granting his permission to arrest that man, did not know but that it was a proper case for arrest. No doubt he believed, when he gave his permission, that the man was one of those "village ruffians" of whom he had spoken. Therefore, we must take it that
  1338
  the information supplied him by some local partizan was that Mr. Crosbie was a village ruffian, and that Mr. Forster acted honestly on the dishonest information so supplied him. How can such occurrences as that be avoided in the future? Under this clause, witnesses will be summoned on the information of local partizans, who will give one sided information as a groundwork for examining a witness; and when that is so, I think it is most important that so un English a proceeding as secret examination—the torturing of a witness in private—should not be adopted without professional advice being afforded such witness. I, therefore, think this clause should not be passed into law without the Amendment which has been proposed.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I think we ought not to be expected to respond so readily to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, We take a great interest in this matter; and on the presumption that the Government are attacking the liberties of the Irish people, and the liberties of the Leaders of the Irish people, we should not be expected to be so generous as to pay out this Crimes Bill fathom by fathom whenever the right hon. Gentleman chooses to stand up and make an appeal to us. This is what is before the Committee; and let English gentlemen understand it. We give you—I do not say readily, but you outvote us, and we give you—the power of calling witnesses at any hour of the day or night out of their beds, if you like; we give you power to bring up persons who have not been accused of any crime, and to examine them upon anything with this one reservation—that we ask that these persons shall have by them, sitting at their sides, a legal adviser who will be prepared to direct them as to whether questions are relevant or not, and as to whether, in a certain line of answer, they are not likely to criminate themselves. I think it is not too much to ask Her Majesty's Government that they should accept the Amendment. Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who spoke a-while ago from the Front Bench opposite, seemed not to know—and that is what we complain of generally against the Members of Her Majesty's Government, that they do not

  1339
  know what they themselves mean. They say that there should be no third party between the magistrate and the witness; but we have it already from them that there is to be some recorder present—some shorthand writer or some one to record the proceedings. Our desire is simply that the witness shall be protected from the asking of impertinent and irrelevant questions. Hon. Gentlemen on this side—at least, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Molloy), who spoke this evening, called attention to a ease, and it was not an empty one. It was a case in which it was pointed out that there may be civil actions pending between a friend of the magistrate and certain civil litigants. Where the magistrate is a friend of the landlord, he could bring up persons, affect to examine them for the investigation of crime—a crime not named or specified—and could elicit most material evidence to be used on some future occasion in the civil cases of his friend the landlord. The Government should give us some assurance that they will set their several legal heads together, and, giving us the benefit of their knowledge and attainments in this matter, devise some means for the protection of witnesses. You are not to suppose that the persons summoned before these Courts are persons who are criminals. That is not the assumption at all. No one who pretends to know Ireland would hold that assumption. I tell you that the persons who will hold these investigations will have brought before them priests, Members of Parliament, and large traders—the leaders of thought in the small towns—and they will take advantage of local and petty disputes, for they will not be able to pretend that they are anything else—for the purpose of exercising their powers, and having exercised them, they will ask the witnesses all sorts of unnecessary and all sorts of impertinent questions. Hon. Members are anxious to give the Resident Magistrates powers which will conduce to the discovery of crime, but will they say that there should be no limitation as to importance and relevance in the questions that may be asked? It is because we feel these things very keenly that we have time after time to ring the changes in these debates. We have to persist in order to extract infor-
  1340
  mation from hon. Gentlemen, and I say that no amount of appeals and platitudes that come from Her Majesty's Government, who do not know what the work to which they have put their hands is, will have the slightest influence upon us so long as we consider it necessary to lay our case before the Committee.
  MR. P. J. POWER; I must say that we on this side of the House have a right to complain of the conspiracy of silence which prevails on the Ministerial Benches. We, on these Benches, have placed before the Government most important points—points that we know are important — and Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side of the House have also endeavoured to impress upon the Government the importance of these matters. But there is no impressing the Government it appears. I should think it would be far more seemly for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to get up from time to time and answer the questions we address to them, than for them to sit yawning there the whole evening. I know from sad experience, and my hon. Friends sitting around me know from sad experience, that this Coercion Act will be used like all previous Coercion Acts, not for the detection of real criminals, but for the choking - off of political opponents. Under these circumstances are we unreasonable in demanding that Her Majesty's Government should give us some explanation of the points which we endeavour to urge? The Committee will recollect that when different Governments at different periods endeavoured to pass different Coercion Acts, they merely asked for those powers for a limited time. The cases are not parallel. We have now before us the most drastic Coercion Act that any Government ever introduced, and they are asking for these powers, not for a limited time, but in perpetuity. Is it unreasonable, therefore, that we should ask the Government to give us some explanation on the points we endeavour to make? We have heard, in connection with this Amendment and this clause, that notes are to be taken of the proceedings which are to be conducted in private; and I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland who is to have access to these notes? If we are to have access to them, how long

  1341
  will it be be after they are published? Perhaps the Government would condescend to answer so small a question as that. The Loader of the House came in and asked us to come to a Division on the Amendment as speedily as possible. I think we have rather spoiled the right hon. Gentleman by giving him Amendment after Amendment to-night. I do not think that even the most grasping of Her Majesty's Government's supporters can allege that we have not made good progress to-night. The progress we have made is really marvellous. This House has already been teaching the Irish people to think that they need not expect justice from it, and I think the manner in which our reasonable proposals are received to-night will confirm them in that opinion. We know how these laws will be brought to bear, and, so far as lies in our power, we will endeavour to thwart Her Majesty's Government at every step in the administration of this Act. We know that it is not levelled at real criminals, but at a Constitutional organization, whose only object has been to stop the rack-renting of the landlords. I would ask how this clause will work with reference to the Plan of Campaign? We know that the proposal—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond the limits of the Amendment.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I thought, Mr. Courtney, we were getting on very well with this clause. Any person who observed the progress of the Business this evening must have seen with satisfaction Amendment after Amendment swept away; the Government, the Opposition, and my Colleagues who sit below the Gangway, seemed to understand each other pretty well. In fact, the Government wore very plausible this evening, and I thought we would have continued doing Business for the balance of the evening in a very pleasant way. But the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) made a sudden incursion into the House, and not satisfied, in company with the Prime Minister, in bullying Members of this House outside by speeches at banquets and soirées— [The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!] Well, Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury comes into the House—and I hope I am not out of Order in saying—tries to intimidate Members of this House in the per-
  1342
  formance of their duty. What is it to us, Sir, if the First Lord of the Treasury threatens to put on the closure, to exercise those extreme powers which the House has conferred upon him. Nevertheless, with all these threats, with all these pains and penalties in view, we shall endeavour, without any passion, without any feeling of resentment, if we possibly can suppress it—we shall endeavour to perform our duty, and to discuss those Amendments according as the requirements of the case demand, and according as our experience compels us to. Well, Sir, I am very sorry that the Government seems to have abandoned its plausible mood, and that it will not accept this very important Amendment. I hold, Mr. Courtney, that the importance of this Amendment has been proved this evening. The Amendment has been called for, because we know, from our experience, that the magistrates in whose hands the administration of the Act of 1882 was placed used that Act for purposes for which the Act was never intended. A magistrate in administering that Act of Parliament always felt it to be his duty to ask irrelevant questions. Why did he do that? Because he was not a magistrate merely sent for the purpose of administering the law, but he was a man sent especially for the purpose of incriminating somebody, and he did not much mind whether the questions asked were relevant to the subject set forth in the summons, or had ulterior objects in view. The magistrates who usually are engaged in the administration of Coercion Acts are men who desire to please their employers—that is their first duty to themselves. It is always with that amount of self-interest in view that they perform their duties; therefore, if they can incriminate somebody, no matter whether the offence committed by the incriminated person has any bearing on the case they were sent to investigate, and if it pleases their employers, they are perfectly satisfied. We ask that an unfortunate witness, or, as he has been described this evening, an unfortunate person, who may be brought up before one of these Courts of Inquiry, shall have the assistance of a solicitor or barrister-at-law. We believe that a witness, no matter whether he be a very ignorant man or an ordinary man of business, will require such assistance

  1343
  as a man of legal training can afford him, otherwise he will have no protection from the irrelevant questions that one of these magistrates will put to him. I was very much, struck with a case in point, quoted by the Mover of this Amendment, from the practice of the French Courts. Certainly, it bore out strongly what I can very easily conceive to have been the practice of Courts that have been already held in Ireland under the old Act. But, not only does the witness require protection from the magistrate in regard to irrelevant questions, but he requires protection from the insults of the magistrate engaged in carrying on the inquiry; he requires protection from the very terror a magistrate tries to instil into him. Imagine one of those magistrates vested with authority, as he has been in Ireland, authority that he has been in the habit of exercising to the detriment of the people who hold him in absolute terror—imagine an investigating magistrate, whose anger has been aroused by a witness declining to answer an irrelevant question, jumping up from the table, pacing up and down the floor of the room in which the inquiry may be held, and looking daggers at the unfortunate witness, threatening him with all sorts of pains and penalties, threatening to put him into prison for six months, defying him to dare the law, asking him to leave the country, and using all the methods a magistrate practices, studies, and employs, in order to terrorize an unfortunate witness into giving evidence of some sort or other, evidence which has very often served to make himself commit perjury. Well, Sir, a witness would require some legal help in order to protect him from this terrorism which has been practised by these magistrates in the performance of their duties in the past, and which will undoubtedly be practised by them in the future. I am sure it can easily be imagined by this Committee that if an investigating magistrate is sitting in Court in the presence of a man of legal training, he will conduct himself with more dignity than he otherwise would. I am not drawing upon my imagination in describing the conduct of these magistrates; I have seen them act in the manner I have described. It was by a system of bullying, terrorism, and the asking of irrelevant questions, that they succeeded, in some respects, in driving
  1344
  people into awkward positions and into gaol, rather than perjure themselves at the bidding of any Court whatever. Now, not only with regard to magistrates, should this safeguard be placed in the hands of the people, but also in regard to their assistants. I will give a case in point to the Committee. I believe that, according to an Amendment that has already been passed, a magistrate will have the assistance of some professional person, of the Petty Sessions Clerk, I think. Now, the Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland are a class of men against whom the people require protection as much as they do from the magistrates themselves. Petty Sessions Clerks are usually appointed by the local gentry, or upon the recommendation of the local gentry. Now, under the Crimes Act of 1882, a celebrated case was tried in the town of Bandon, County Cork, and as the result of that case the present Mayor of Cork, a gentleman named Mr. Mahoney, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly), were committed for terms of imprisonment ranging from two to three months. These hon. and distinguished men had to lie for months on plank beds. Well, Sir, the Petty Sessions Clerk of that district omitted to take down material evidence—wilfully omitted to take down material evidence —evidence that would have gone far to acquit my hon. Friend the Member for West Cork and his companions; and it was only after a very long wrangle, introduced and provoked by the hon. Gentleman who now sits for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), that the magistrate consented to have this material evidence taken down; but although this was done, this evidence, however, was not allowed to be used at the trial. Not only did this Petty Sessions Clerk omit to take down material evidence, but he actually connived at witnesses who had made material and important statements leaving the Court and town without signing their depositions. Well, Sir, that is the course of conduct on the part of a class of people who are to play an important part in the carrying out of this Criminal Law Amendment Act, and in taking down depositions under this clause. What I have said, Mr. Courtney, is only a sample of many other unfair proceedings that may be quoted to this Committee, in

  1345
  order to prove the contention that I am endeavouring to urge. I maintain, Sir, that upon every ground upon which we can discuss this question, from every point of view that we can look at it, it is of the greatest possible importance to the people of Ireland who will be affected by this clause, that they should be protected at these inquiries by the presence of some legally-trained person. By reason of the manner in which they are appointed, the magistrates themselves will desire to serve their masters in the best way they can. They will not stand upon ceremony, they will not stand upon the mere Act of Parliament, they will not hesitate to put irrelevant questions, they will not hesitate to insult and terrorize witnesses so long as it pleases their employers and gets them a step of promotion, and a possible retention on the staff. An enormous number of appointments will be made under this Bill when it becomes law; we know the class of men who will be called upon to fill the various posts that will necessarily be created by this Bill; we know that they will be men who will scarcely know a line of the Act of Parliament which they will be asked to administer; broken down soldiers and promoted policemen will be called upon to administer this Act. They will study rather the intention of those above them than the lines of the Act of Parliament that have been so well considered in this House, and have been carried so strenuously and so plausibly by the Government. I say that, upon all these grounds, this Amendment is the most important that has been proposed for the consideration of this Committee to-night, and I must express my regret that the Government have abandoned the plausible mood in which they begun the Business of the evening, and that they stand firm against the acceptance of this most important Amendment. I look upon it as a bad augury. They have rejected every Amendment proposed on this side of the House night after night, and the rejection of this and other Amendments clearly shows what is the mind of the Government. They desire not only to draft a stringent Act of Parliament, but to carry it out in the most stringent manner they possibly can. Their conduct is susceptible of no other reading than that it is their intention to administer the Act in the same spirit in
  1346
  which it has been conceived; and, notwithstanding many protestations to the contrary, it is clearly the intention of the Government to break up all those combinations, those legal and just combinations having for their object the reduction of unjust rents, and the benefit of the people generally.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Mr. Courtney, I think we really have great reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in not giving any reply whatever to the question, asked over and over again, why they object to this Amendment? I have listened to Irish Member after Irish Member putting this question, and I have heard two Gentlemen from these Benches, both of them representing constituencies in Wales, one belonging to the higher and the other to the lower branch of the Legal Profession in this country, put this question very plausibly to the Government, yet the Government seem to think it is a fine thing to sit in silence and pay no heed to the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment. If there is some good reason why these witnesses should not have legal assistance, why not get up and give it to us? In the absence of a given reason, the only conclusion we can come to is that it is desired to keep Irish witnesses more and more within the power of their enemies. I am not anxious to obtrude in this debate, and hitherto have taken no part in it. Some of the points are of a complicated kind, and need some knowledge of law and some knowledge of Ireland; but this is a perfectly clear and straightforward matter. I remember that, when I was a great deal younger than I am now, an eminent minister, who used to officiate in a chapel not far from where we now are, told me that if the Angel Gabriel came to him with a legal document he would not look at it until he had seen his solicitor. Surely, if a Resident Magistrate is vested with these extraordinary powers, a witness is entitled to have some protection from the abuse of those powers. One hon. Gentleman has spoken to-night of lay magistrates, and of their knowledge of the Law of Evidence. Well, I can corroborate all he has stated, because I am myself a lay magistrate. What the hon. Gentleman said may not be very complimentary to us, but it is, nevertheless, perfectly true; we are very often at sea

  1347
  as to what is real evidence and what is not. I think that we are really entitled to demand that the Government shall give us, and give us civilly, a reason why they think a witness should not be afforded the protection contemplated by this Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Wilson) was in the House when my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) spoke a short time ago. If he had been in the House he would have heard very strong reasons given why this Amendment should not be adopted. Since my hon. and learned Friend spoke, each speech delivered from the Benches below the Gangway opposite has been a repetition of the preceding one, and the simple reason why the Government have not intervened is that they cannot add anything to the clear statement made by my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. H. J. GILL: I think the reasons given by the Government for not accepting this Amendment are extremely weak. From every point of view that rational and sensible men can look upon this Bill, I think that the Government ought to accept this Amendment, inasmuch as it affords some security against this Act being administered in a tyrannical manner towards witnesses. The Government have promised to allow shorthand reports to be taken of the proceedings at these secret investigations; but what on earth is the good of the shorthand reports, unless they can be made use of. These proceedings will be carried on by magistrates, as we distinctly say, perfectly ignorant of the law, and we all know the class of men whom the Government will employ as shorthand reporters. It was said, I think, that there were no shorthand reporters employed during the administration of the Crimes Act of 1882. A right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench said that the reason that they would accept the Amendment to have shorthand reporters was that such persons wore plentiful now, and that they were V9ry scarce at the time the last Crimes Act was in operation. But what kind of reporters do they intend to use? By their own admission they intend to use what we in Ireland know to be Con-
  1348
  stabulary reporters, and the vast bulk of these gentlemen know very little about reporting. It has been proved over and over again that they were unable to write out their own notes, and that they had to make use of the reports in the daily papers in order to help them to transcribe their notes. Well, as this is to be a secret inquiry, they will get no assistance whatever from reports in the daily papers. These very clever gentlemen, therefore, will be thrown on their own resources, and I question very much whether one out of 10 of them will be able to write out on one day the shorthand notes taken on the previous day. Unless there is some legal gentleman, either a barrister or a solicitor, watching the case for the witness, how can we trust to the accuracy of these shorthand reports, which may afterwards be produced. There is no doubt of it but that when those transcripts are brought before the Court afterwards, there will be no witness, as regards their accuracy, except the shorthand reporter himself, and, as we all know very well, in Ireland these shorthand reporters are not at all to be depended upon, and, in fact, very many of them know little or nothing of shorthand writing. I admit the Government is in a great dilemma. If they want this proposal of theirs to be of any use, or to be looked upon with any amount of confidence by the people of Ireland, they should either allow a solicitor or barrister to be present and watch the proceedings, or they should allow the accused, or the witnesses, to have a shorthand writer of their own, so that his report might be compared with that of the Government reporter. I think that, from every point of view, this is a most reasonable Amendment, and should not be refused by the Government.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, we have no desire to prolong the discussion of this Amendment any further; yet, at the same time, I feel bound to enter the strongest and the most solemn protest I can against the whole action of the Government in regard to this Amendment. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire (Mr. H. J. Wilson) called attention to the discourtesy, and the incivility, and the decidedly un-parliamentary action of the hon. Gen-

  1349
  tlemen who, for the moment, represent Her Majesty's Government. I suppose that, if these Gentlemen held some higher positions in the Government to which they belong, their conduct would be a little more rational and a little more civil. I always observe that the incivility of Members of the Government is in adverse proportion to their positions in the Government. My second protest is to these periodical visitations of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of making visits to this Committee, about which the only thing angelic is that they are few and far between. I protest most strongly against the First Lord of the Treasury coining in and saying that an Amendment has been sufficiently debated, when the right hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of hearing one single syllable of the argument. Why, Sir, it is disrespectful to the Committee that the Leader of the House, taking no part whatever in the debates of the House, not oven hearing these debates, should come in, and, in his lofty and Olympian manner, declare—as if, in the recesses of his room outside this House, he had been able, by inspiration, to discover it—that an Amendment had been sufficiently debated. And the third protest I wish to make is in reference to the position in which a person is placed who is examined under this clause. Now, Sir, it is perfectly clear that the way the Government intend to work this clause is by terror. I remember the time when every Englishman would be indignant at the idea that we would transfer to this country that system of interrogation, that system of putting an unfortunate person on the rack, which is to be considered the characteristic, and, in a certain sense, the shame of the French judiciary. By this clause we shall transfer to Ireland, and for over, the very worst principles and the most shameful and the most exceptional practice of the French judiciary. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Chance), who is learned in the law, which I am not, tells me that what is proposed is very much worse than what exists in France. It is perfectly dear that the Government do not intend these unfortunate men should have fair play; they want to bring them into Court alone; they want to terrorize them; they want
  1350
  to leave them without counsel or advice, or assistance; they want to take advantage of their unguarded moments, of their ignorance, of their want of acquaintance with legal and judicial forms —in other words, this is the modern equivalent of the ancient council. For these reasons, Mr. Courtney, I think, without further prolonging the discussion, we shall be perfectly justified in going to a Division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 193: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 114.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Courtney, I beg to move to insert, after the word "recognizance," in page 1, line 17, the words—
  "The authority of the Attorney General for the holding of such inquiry shall remain in force for fourteen days, and no longer, but may be renewed by the Attorney General by warrant under his hand from time to time."
  My object, of course, in moving this Amendment is that the orders issued by the Attorney General shall not remain in force for an indefinite length of time; I think that is only a reasonable proposition. Supposing the existing Attorney General went out of Office, or should be happily made a Judge— which, I understand, he is to be in a very short time—I think it is only right that these orders should be brought before his successor. I think, too, it is only right that a magistrate down in the country should consider every fortnight whether he wants fresh powers or not. I do think that the Committee will recognize that some period of time should be fixed when these inquiries and the powers under them should be completed. That being so, whether you take a fortnight, as suggested by me, or three weeks—if the Government would prefer throe weeks or a month, I have no objection—at any rate, some time ought to come when the purposes of an inquiry would be served, and the Resident Magistrate should no longer have power to hold an inquiry. If a magistrate wants fresh powers, all he will have to do will be to write to the Attorney General; and as that right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably get a large fee of 10 guineas every time he signs his name, I do not think he would object. I think my Amendment

  1351
  affords the Government an opportunity of making a graceful concession.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after "recognizance," insert "the authority of the Attorney General for the holding of such inquiry shall remain in force for fourteen days and no longer, but may be renewed by the Attorney General by warrant under his hand from time to time."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): Mr. Courtney, hundreds of Amendments of this character might be suggested, and our answer to them all would be that they are altogether unnecessary, and would be overloading the Bill with unnecessary provisions. It may be assumed that an inquiry of this character will be held within a reasonable time of the date of the order. I certainly think that the Resident Magistrate to whom the order is sent should have the opportunity of choosing his own time for the holding of that inquiry. I cannot think that there would be any abuse of the power given to Resident Magistrates by the order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It seems to me that the only objection that the right hon. and learned. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has to my Amendment is that it would cover too much paper. That is a very small matter to the taxpayers; therefore, I hope the Government will accept my proposition. It will do them no harm, but will give us some satisfaction.
  MR. HOLMES: I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient if fresh powers were to be sought for by Resident Magistrates every two or three weeks or a month. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be assured that no improper or undue use will be made of this power.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland seems to me to leave out from the purview of his consideration the fact that these powers can be renewed at any time. All a Resident Magistrate has to do is to expend a penny stamp in forwarding a letter to the Attorney General asking to have the power of holding an inquiry renewed. All I wish to provide is that at some period, some moment of time, the power of holding an inquiry shall come to an end, and that if a magi-
  1352
  strate wants the power renewed he can obtain its renewal. Is this unreasonable? There is the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) listening to the debate with great interest, and I put it to him is it unreasonable that some moment of time shall be fixed—you may make it a month or two months if you like— when a magistrate shall seek a renewal of the power given to him? My Amendment is of a most elastic character, and I would accept any suggestion from the Government in the way of amending it. Where is the harm done by this Amendment? I will pay all the penny stamps a Resident Magistrate may be out of pocket if it is desired. But it cannot be on the ground of expense that the Attorney General resists my Amendment; it is on the ground that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to appear reasonable. While he was out at dinner, the English Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) made several concessions which led to great progress. He did so for the purpose of shortening debate. After having resisted one Amendment he immediately afterwards accepted it. [Mr. HOLMES: May and shall.] But it was a most important Amendment according to our view. I trust the Government will see their way to accept this reasonable Amendment.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I give the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) credit for good intentions; but when he says that an Act like this would not be used for any purpose but what it was intended for, and would not be used unduly, I think that was a very unfortunate phrase to use. We have been treated to that statement before over and over again with regard to this and other Acts. We know that Attorney Generals do not always remain in the same position, they are very likely to be promoted to the Bench, and the present Attorney General may possibly have some successor who would not be bound by the statement of the present Attorney General. Now, Sir, it is a very great hardship to keep any district in a state of tension, and once the Attorney General issues an order for an inquiry the whole district will certainly be in a state of tension and uncertainty. In that state of uncertainty it is quite possible that the people who thought they would be attacked would seek to leave the country. I can conceive a state of things occur-

  1353
  ring, when the Attorney General, acting for the Executive Government in Ireland, would proclaim a district for no other purpose than that of terrorizing the people into leaving that district. Now, if it be found, after a time, that this state of things has been brought about, that the desirable result has been accomplished, that those whom the Government do not wish to have in a district have been scared away, why not allow the edict to drop, and thereby restore persons to their usual and normal state of mind. I hold it is quite feasible for the Attorney General to bring about a state of uncertainty in a district which would be detrimental to the peace of men, and to the peace of all the families in the district. This Amendment is a very reasonable one, and the Government will do well to accept it. If, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) says, the Amendment provides that the power may be renewed upon application by the magistrate, it would be but a gracious thing for the Attorney General and the Government to accept the proposition.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will not waste the time of the Committee if the Government are determined not to accept the Amendment. I beg to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I presume the Government will not accept the two next Amendments that stand in nay name, and therefore it is no use my moving them. I beg to move, however, Amendment number 47—namely, to insert after "recognizance," in line 17, the words—
  "A witness may decline to answer, on the ground that the subject of inquiry is not a crime within the meaning of this Act, and shall not be committed for so refusing until a Judge of the High Court certifies that the inquiry is lawfully holden."
  This Amendment, Mr. Courtney, deals somewhat with the burning question of the Plan of Campaign. Suppose it is alleged that there is a conspiracy on foot, and that a meeting is to be held at a town hall. As is always done in those cases, the Attorney General will send the warrants in blank, and every magistrate will have a pile of blanks forms of warrants already signed, and he will only have to fill in the dates. Now, if, as I say, a meeting of tenantry is held, a
  1354
  magistrate will have it in his power to order every man to appear before him who has attended the meeting. All I wish to provide is that if any particular witness says that no conspiracy has taken place he may decline to answer, on the ground that the warrants have been, signed in blank by the Attorney General. If no crime has been committed in the district, you have no authority under these blank warrants to hold a court. Under these circumstances, I do ask that the Government should give us some guarantee that such things will not be allowed to take place; that if a witness says that the meeting was a bonâ fide one and not a conspiracy at all, the inquiry shall not be held without some kind of restriction in the way of a second mind being brought to bear on the subject. I think that is a most reasonable suggestion, and I do not think warrants ought to be filled in blank; but, of course, they will be. The Government are filled with good intentions, but, somehow or other, good intentions seem to leave them when they are dealing with Ireland. I do really think the Government should tell us exactly when these inquiries will be hold, and whether they are only to be held in regard to some real crime, whether a witness will be protected from answering questions of an impertinent character, and the questions confined to matters relating to some real crime, such as murder, arson, firing into dwellings, manslaughter, or something that would really come within the definition of a serious crime.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause, as it at present stands, authorizes inquiries where information has been laid that any offence to which this section applies has been committed. I think this Amendment would be out of Order, unless for the words "within the meaning of this Act" were substituted the words "to which this section applies."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will submit to your suggestion, Mr. Courtney.
  Amendment proposed—
  In page 1, line 17, after "recognizance" insert — "a witness may decline to answer, on the ground that the subject of inquiry is not a crime to which this section applies, and shall not be committed for so refusing until a Judge of the High Court certifies that the inquiry is lawfully holden."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The lion, and learned Gentleman seemed to suggest that the whole of these proceedings would be illegal; that a magistrate will have a number of blank warrants, and fill them up when required. I agree that if such irregularities are to be assumed, the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly just. But we have many times pointed out that the inquiry is to be directed by the Attorney General upon sworn information, after an offence to which this section applies has been committed in a proclaimed district. I must say that it is scarcely fair to assume that this section would be worked illegally; that the Attorney General, without sworn information or the exercise of any discretion, would direct a magistrate to hold an inquiry at will. Then, again, the hon. and learned Member will recollect that in any question arising out of the refusal of a witness to answer, we have undertaken that in the warrant there shall appear the question put to him, so that the legality of the question can be ascertained. We cannot allow a witness to raise the point contemplated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and thereby stop the inquiry at his pleasure.
  MR. CHANGE: I should like to point out that an inquiry can be very easily stopped, and I have no doubt many will be stopped by the very simple and expeditious means of refusing to answer. The fact that witnesses can be sent to gaol will not prevent the stoppage of inquiries. I trust the Amendment will be pushed to a Division, unless we get some more cogent argument against it than that advanced by the Attorney General for England, a Gentleman who naturally has not the slightest conception of the way in which things are carried on in Ireland.
  MR. MOLLOY: I should like to put a question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster). I mentioned a case earlier in the evening of a landlord in Ireland who has a civil action against some of his tenants. That landlord is a very near reletive of one of the Resident Magistrates. Now, supposing an inquiry takes place under the mandate of the Attorney General, and the inquiry goes on in regard to an alleged offence or crime in the district, and this
  1356
  Resident Magistrate proceeds to make inquiries which may be used in the civil action, will the Attorney General tell me what protection there is for witnesses in such a case? The Attorney General will admit that if questions are addressed in regard to matters connected with the civil action, they will be entirely without the purview of the Bill. If a witness, under these conditions, declines to answer a question which has been put to him, which deals only—of course the Attorney General must assume my case—which deals only with the civil action, and which has nothing to do with the alleged crime in the district, will he, or will he not, be punished? If he is punished, is there any appeal? Will the Attorney General say in what way a witness will be able to protect himself from the unjust use of this section by a Resident Magistrate. I shall be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer my question.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: This Amendment really does not meet the point the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) has called attention to. The Amendment refers to a witness declining to answer a question in regard to a crime to which this section applies. It has nothing to do with any question which a magistrate puts to him upon a totally irrelevant point.
  MR. COX: I entirely agree with the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), that warrants in large numbers will be signed in blank and sent to the magistrates from Dublin Castle, and I believe that if the hon. Members opposite were as well acquainted with the practice of the Castle as we are, they would not be quite so prejudiced against the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I myself have had experience of the working of the former Act. I had the honour of being arrested and put in gaol under the Act of Mr. Forster. At that time, I read the debates which went on in this House, and in which it was over and over again stated by Mr. Forster that no one was arrested under that Act in the absence of a proper warrant. I was arrested on the 20th of June, charged with having incited the people to do what I believe they were entitled to do. Twelve months afterwards I came across the warrant under which I was arrested.

  1357
  As I have said, I was arrested on the 20th of June for a speech made at Liverpool, and to my astonishment I found that the warrant was dated in the month of May previously. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will be astonished at that statement, but I have the warrant still; I have had it framed, and I shall have much pleasure in showing it to him, the date on which it was signed being the 20th or 21st of May. My experience, therefore, fully bears out the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford. We know that blank warrants at that time were sent out in sheaves; the names of the persons for whom they were used were put in afterwards; they were signed by the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Cowper; the offence was put in afterwards, and when it suited the authorities at the Castle, the man was arrested. Now, Sir, we have every reason to believe that the same thing will take place under the present Act. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford has stated, these blank warrants will be sent to the magistrates; and it is because we know, from our experience, what will be the working of the Act that we desire to insert this provision. I certainly hope my hon. Friends will press this Amendment on the Committee to the end.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I also hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford will divide the Committee on this Amendment, because it seems to me that, unless it is accepted, the unfortunate men who are called from their homes and from their businesses, to give evidence before this secret tribunal, will have no guarantee that they will not be committed to prison for what is practically no offence at all. The only thing which the Amendment provides is that the witness shall not be imprisoned by the Resident Magistrate without some good cause, and it is quite possible that a witness should be asked questions which, although the Resident Magistrate may consider them appropriate to the matter of the inquiry, may be altogether inappropriate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is speaking on a subject which is not at all relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I am supporting the Amendment, No. 47, of my hon. and learned Friend, which says—
  "A witness may decline to answer, on the ground that the subject of inquiry is not a crime to which this section applies, and shall not be committed for so refusing until a Judge of the High Court certifies that the inquiry is lawfully holden."
  Well, Sir, I hold that this Amendment is absolutely necessary, and that it should be agreed to by the Government, inasmuch as it merely gives a witness a Court of Appeal to which he may have recourse in the event of his being committed to prison by the magistrate for refusing to answer a question, on the ground that the subject of inquiry is not a crime within the meaning of the Act.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have read this Amendment very carefully, inasmuch as in his reply he appears to me to have considered it from a point of view entirely different from that in which we regard it. His objection to the Amendment is founded on the assumption that the Attorney General had done an illegal act and had ordered an inquiry which was not within the meaning of the Act. But that is not the fact. The motion of the Attorney General under this clause is by an ex parte information; it may or may not be justified by facts. The Attorney General in directing inquiry may be quite wrong, and the danger, therefore, is that this section may be used for the purpose of inquiring, not, about an offence which has been committed, but to enable the magistrate to find out whether an offence has been committed at all. Let me take a case arising under another portion of the Act. Say, that it is alleged that the tenants on a certain estate have combined to compel the landlord to take a certain course; say, that the landlord has come to the conclusion that a combination exists among the tenants, and for that reason desires that an inquiry should take place. He will go to the next magistrate and tell the story; he will want to convince the local Resident Magistrate that persons in the district will tell the truth, and that, on inquiry, he may be convinced that such and such a state of things exists. Now, notwithstanding that it may be believed that this combination

  1359
  on the part of the tenants exists, and that it is criminal, it may still be that the combination is of a perfectly innocent character, and constitutes no offence at all. I say that the danger which is struck [at by this Amendment is, that whereas the section should really only be worked for the purpose of finding out offences which have been committed, and bringing the perpetrators of those offences to justice, there is a danger, under the clause as it at present stands, that the section, instead of being confined to that use, may be used to find out whether or not an offence has been committed. Under the circumstances which I have stated—namely, that on the suggestion of a local landlord, you may try to find out what is the real state of facts, the clause may become a very dangerous engine. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has met that point. He has dealt with the Amendment on a wrong basis. He has assumed that there can be no question that an offence has been committed; but that is not the fact, inasmuch as statements to that effect may be made by the landlords, and no offence whatever may have been committed. It is to guard against that danger that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford is proposed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not want to prolong this discussion; but I am bound to say that I thought I should have had the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who objected, on a memorable occasion, to give a blank cheque to Lord Salisbury. We are asked to give a blank cheque to Her Majesty's Government for holding these inquiries of an official character. No one can say whether a conspiracy exists or does not exist; it is a matter lying in the minds of two or three people, although, of course, I can understand you will get a person to make an affidavit that he believes a conspiracy exists among tenants —say, on the estate of Colonel King-Harman, or an estate of that kind—but as the Government have no intention to meet us on this point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall not move the next Amendment
  1360
  relating to the expenses of witnesses; but I hope the Government will accept my proposal to insert, after the word "recognizance," the words—
  "Should a witness refuse to answer any lawful question touching the subject of the inquiry, the magistrate shall forward such inquiry to the Attorney General, who, by warrant under his hand, may authorize such magistrate to commit such witness should he persist in such refusal."
  I venture to say that this is a reasonable Amendment, in as much as it provides that no person shall be sent to gaol for not answering an unlawful inquiry. I do not think the Government will be able to resist this appeal. Surely the Attorney General has enough respect for law to satisfy himself, on the facts submitted to him, as to whether the question put by the magistrate to the witness is lawful or unlawful. We are only asking for protection against unlawful inquiries, and I sincerely hope the Government will consent to the introduction of these words.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I must point out that, although the Government desire to meet every just and reasonable Amendment, the present proposal of the hon. Member is not one which we can insert in the clause. It is proposed that the magistrate shall forward a statement to the Attorney General as to the questions refused to be answered by the witness, and that the Attorney General may, by warrant under his hand, authorize the committal of the witness should he persist in his refusal. It is my opinion that this Amendment is both valueless in itself and proposes something beyond the functions of the Attorney General. It asks that an officer who has not been present at the inquiry should, on a more statement, issue his warrant for the committal of a witness. For these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. M. HEALY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, after the word "recognizance," insert—
  "Provided, also, a shorthand writer shall be in attendance at such inquiries, and shall take down the questions of the magistrates, and the answers of each witness."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government have agreed to the last Amendment. I presume they will have no objection to the one I now move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after "recognizance" insert "upon any person being accused of a crime, respecting which an inquiry under this section has been held, such accused person, or his solicitor, upon being returned for trial, shall forthwith be supplied with copies of all depositions taken at any inquiry under this section."—[Mr. T. M. Healy.]
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): We propose to introduce an Amendment towards the end of the clause, to make it quite clear that, except in a single instance—namely, where there is a prosecution for perjury—the information taken under the section shall not be used either against or for the prisoner, that it shall not be produced in any action or shown to anybody connected therewith.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is perfectly diabolical. To hold an inquiry and say that the prisoner shall not have the benefit of the result of that inquiry, is absolutely hateful. You put a man named Clark and his wife on trial for murder; they wore acquitted, and I remember the Attorney General holding up that acquittal as a most infamous thing. No sooner did that take place, than two other men were arrested; you put them on their trial, and, like the others, they were acquitted also. That was under the Crimes Act. Supposing these men had been brought before this secret inquiry, they would not have been able to use the depositions. The Government have accepted my Amendment, providing that shorthand writers should take down the questions of the magistrates and the answers of the witnesses. But what is the good of that, if you will not give us access to the depositions? Am I to understand that I am moving Amendments for the benefit of Her Majesty's Government? It certainly amounts to this—you accept an amendment that a shorthand writer shall attend the inquiry, and take down the questions of the magistrates and the answers of the witnesses, and now you tell us that the prisoner and his advocate shall get
  1362
  no benefit from it. There is no reason in the action of the Government. When you have provided for the holding of secret inquiries, and have abolished Petty Session indictments, there will be no such thing as Petty Session depositions. The Crown brief will be made up on the result of these secret investigations, and yet you say the prisoner and his counsel are not to be supplied with copies of the depositions. At the present time, the prisoner's counsel is entitled to a copy of the Crown brief, almost as a matter of course in Ireland, although it may not be so in England. If you abolish the Petty Session depositions, there will be practically no depositions taken except those depositions taken at the secret inquiry. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But I must ask him if he means to contend that if the Law Officers of the Crown have had the secret depositions before them, they will not allow them to be used by the prisoner; do they mean to waste the money of the public in getting these depositions taken, and yet not allow the prisoner or his counsel to have advantage there from? You will make the secret inquiry stand in lieu of indictment by the system of taking depositions before the magistrates, and I say it is absolutely necessary that the evidence taken should not be withheld from the prisoner. I trust, therefore, that the Government will see the justice of this Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that if the statements made before the magistrate were the same as those which would be used at the trial, it might be right that this Amendment should be accepted. But such a thing was never done under the Act of 1882, and no such thing will be done under this Act. The clause provides that the witnesses shall be bound on recognizance to give evidence. Their depositions will be taken in the ordinary way. It will be impossible to have any person returned for trial unless the depositions are so taken, and the accused will have every opportunity of referring to those depositions. The Attorney General for England has said not merely that these depositions will not be used against a man who is examined, but that they ought not to be in

  1363
  any proceedings of the kind, and there is an Amendment on the Paper, which the Government will accept, for the purpose of preventing these depositions being used for any purpose, except in the case of a prosecution for perjury. It is therefore perfectly clear that there is no wish whatever to use the depositions on the trial of any person except in the case I have referred to. The hon. and learned Member asks why, if the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, they have agreed to the Amendment which provides that a shorthand writer shall be in attendance to take down the questions of the magistrates and the answers of the witnesses? That Amendment has been agreed to, because, for the sake of example, if a person were examined and sent to prison for refusing to answer a question put by the magistrate, it would very likely be the subject of a charge made in this House that the magistrate had asked questions which he had no right to ask, and was not justified in taking action under this section. In such a case as that, hon. Members will see that the shorthand notes would be a check upon the action of the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland appreciates the point taken by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. As the clause is drawn at present, it will be in the power of the Attorney General to make use of knowledge which has been denied to the prisoner's counsel. I am sure that the Attorney General for England will see how unfair that would be, because you are in this position—you call the witness on this private inquiry, he makes a statement, he is afterwards called before a magistrate, where he makes a contrary statement, and no one but the Law Officers of the Crown know that he has contradicted himself. I do not assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be the prosecuting counsel on the trial; because I am sure he would not call a witness who has previously contradicted his statement, but there are cases in which the prosecution will be handed over to somebody else. Now the fact that a witness has made contradictory statements would, in the hand of a cross-examining counsel for the prisoner, be of the most vital
  1364
  importance. This is quite distinct from the question of the witnesses' statements being used against him on the trial; the great thing is for the cross-examining counsel to have the knowledge that the witness has made a statement which he subsequently contradicted, and I impress upon the Attorney General for England the desirability of accepting this Amendment.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I venture to think that this Amendment is an extremely reasonable one, and I will endeavour to put before the Committee the reasons why I consider it to be so. This Bill gives power to the Crown to prosecute for perjury, in the event of a witness having stated in his deposition something that is different to that stated at this private inquiry. That is a privilege which is solely preserved for the Crown lawyer if the clause is allowed to stand as at present; because the prisoner would not be permitted to use the depositions, and, therefore, he would not be able to compare them with the evidence which may be given at the trial. Therefore, I venture to say that this is an unfair advantage given to the Crown. Now, a great deal has been said about there being a similarity to the law of Scotland in this respect. With the greatest respect for the Attorney General for Ireland, I venture to point out that the law of Scotland provides that the depositions of a witness may be destroyed, and shall be destroyed, if required. The deposition of a witness under this clause is to be perpetuated for purposes of the Crown, not for the purpose of the witness. It is a cardinal point of the administration of justice in this country that greater favour should be shown to the prisoner than is shown to the Crown; but, in this case, greater favour is shown to the Crown than to the prisoner. I point out that it will be absolutely out of the power of a prisoner to check any of the evidence which may be given by a witness on the trial, by comparing it with what he may have spoken previously. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that it is reasonable and fair, and in accordance with the ordinary course of proceedings in this country, that this Amendment should be accepted.
  MR. MAHONY: I should like to offer a suggestion which I trust will meet the approval of the right hon.

  1365
  and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consent that the depositions which have been made by the persons examined at the secret inquiry shall be afterwards brought for-ware at the trial, so that the witnesses for the Crown may be confronted with the statements they have previously made? I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment will be satisfied with this concession or not; but with regard to the importance of some such provision I would mention a fact with which, in all probability, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is acquainted — namely, that some of the chief witnesses at the Phœnix Park murders trial, when first examined, gave totally different evidence to that which they gave at the trial. I make this statement on very good authority, and I ask the Committee to bear it in mind. If the prisoners had had the benefit of the evidence those witnesses gave in the first instance, when examined at the secret inquiry, it would have thrown great light on the character of the persons by whom it was given. The effect of my statement is this—that the witnesses brought forward on behalf of the Crown had perjured themselves on the occasion of their examination at the secret inquiry.
  An hon. MEMBER: I would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England whether he will accept the suggestion that has just been made, and allow the statements—I will not call them depositions—that are made by persons examined at the preliminary inquiry to be brought forward at the trial? When a man is brought before a justice of the peace in connection with any charge his statement will be taken down by the shorthand writer, and ought, according to the principles of fair play, to be put before the jury if necessary in the interests of the accused. When a number of persons are brought before a Resident Magistrate some may make statements incriminating A, and others may make statements incriminating B; but when B is brought before the magistrate, or, rather, when he is placed upon his trial, he ought to be able to see that statements have been made incriminating someone else. Therefore, I
  1366
  would, in all sincerity, venture to suggest that the Government should adopt this proposal, which I submit is fully in accord with the spirit of our criminal procedure. If we are to enter upon these odious inquiries which I am sure the hon. and learned Attorney General dislikes quite as much as we do, he ought to take care that the principle of fair play is applied all round.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I am very much surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mahony) has stated about the Phœnix Park murders—namely, that the men convicted of those murders ought not to have been found guilty.
  MR. MAHONY: What I suggested was that some of the witnesses at the trial of the persons accused of the Phœnix Park murders had made statements at the secret inquiry which were totally opposed to the evidence they afterwards gave.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Then the hon. Gentleman's point is that the witnesses were not entitled to credit, because they made different statements at the preliminary examination to those which they made at the trial—statements which were contradictory of the evidence they subsequently gave. I should like to know on what authority the hon. Member makes such a statement. I would merely point out to the Committee that the preliminary inquiry is to be instituted for the purpose of obtaining information under circumstances in which evidence cannot ordinarily be obtained. When prisoners are brought up they will be charged in a proper way, and depositions being taken before they can be committed for trial, they will be entitled to copies of those depositions, just as is the case under the existing practice; but Her Majesty's Government are certainly of opinion that these statements made before the Resident Magistrates for preliminary purposes in aid of justice ought not to be made public. This matter having now been amply discussed, I trust the Committee will be allowed to divide upon it.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Before a Division is taken I think there are a few words which ought to be said in favour of this Amendment, and I trust my hon. and learned Friends on the other side of the Table will give me

  1367
  their attention for a very brief interval. I may say that I have taken very little part in the discussion of this 1st clause in Committee for reasons which I explained to the House when I addressed it during the debate on the second reading of the Bill; and I do not hesitate to say that, if we could fairly rely on the just administration of the clause, I think it is a provision that might very well be embodied in the ordinary law. But a great deal of distrust has been expressed with regard to this clause, and much anxiety has been displayed as to whether it will be safeguarded in a reasonable way. I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General for Ireland has really met the point at issue in regard to this Amendment. I concede to my hon. and learned Friend that there may be a difficulty in requiring that a copy of the whole proceedings before a magistrate should be given to a particular prisoner charged with a particular offence; but I want to know why that prisoner is not to be entitled to the earlier deposition which a witness may have made at the private or secret inquiry, in the event of the same witness having to be called against him at the trial. The witness A is called before the Resident Magistrate and makes a detailed statement before him, and upon the basis of the information that person has thus given on oath, the matter is taken up by another and an independent magistrate, before whom the depositions are regularly taken, and the prisoner is charged and committed for trial. A is examined both before the Resident Magistrate at the private inquiry, and also before the magistrate who returns the prisoner for trial. Why should not the statement made by A at the earlier examination be brought forward so that it may be compared with the deposition he makes at the later inquiry on which the prisoner is committed for trial? I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland if such a case came before him as that of a witness having made upon oath two inconsistent statements, one of which must be known to the prisoner, because it has been taken before the committing magistrate, and the other of which was not known to the prisoner, because it was taken at the private inquiry, would think he was bound in fairness and in justice to communicate to the
  1368
  prisoner the fact that that particular witness, who might be the most important witness in the case, had made two distinct and contradictory statements. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will give me credit for only desiring to press matters to a reasonable and fair conclusion. I would therefore move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, the insertion of the words "of any witness to be called against him," so that the Amendment would read—
  "Upon any person being accused of a crime respecting which an inquiry under this section has been held, such accused person, or his solicitor, upon his being returned for trial, shall forthwith he supplied with copies of all depositions taken at any inquiry under this section of any of the witnesses called against him."
  MR. HOLMES: I have no objection to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But having regard to the fact that we have already agreed that the depositions should not be used on any trial, either against the man who made them, or any other person, the result of this Amendment renders it impossible to carry out this arrangement; and as the depositions can be used in cross-examination by the prisoner, they must also be used for the same purpose by the Crown.
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, after the word "section," insert the words "of any witness to be called against him." — (Sir Charles Russell.)
  Question, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is a little difficult to take the clause exactly as it is with the words that have been, added. I think it would be necessary to add some such words as these— "as far as the same relates to the offence with which the accused person is charged." It is quite clear that in the statements made, a number of other matters may have been gone into and a number of other persons may have been referred to. I will move that these words be inserted.
  Further Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, at end add the words — "as far as the same relates to the offence with which the accused person is charged."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I understand the words the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to add to be "as far as the same relates to the offence," but I should like to know what is the meaning of "relates to the offence." Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that if a witness at the secret or private inquiry inculpates some third person, or made a statement that he had suspicions as to some third person, that that also would be included? I should say that the depositions taken at the court of secret or private inquiry ought to be communicated to the prisoner or his solicitor.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It appears to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in moving to add these words to the Amendment, completely justifies the position we have all along taken with regard to the proposed inquiry. Those words seem to me to make it possible that in an inquiry regarding one offence, it will be competent to the magistrate holding the inquiry to so enlarge the scope of his inquisition that it may include almost any conceivable matter. Any inquiry held by a magistrate will be confined to the offence in respect of which he holds it, or it will not; and every word uttered by a witness before him will be of importance at the trial. The presumption is that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Attorney General is accepted, it will be possible for a magistrate holding an inquiry to take evidence not relating to the offence to which it refers, and consequently there would be the utmost danger that the magistrates would be induced to enlarge the scope of their investigations far beyond the particular matter intended to be inquired into. We ought, therefore, to insist on a clear understanding on this point. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that it would be competent to a magistrate inquiring into one offence to take evidence with regard to another offence? If he does not mean that, the words he proposes are illusory.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I only desired, as far as possible, to see that justice was done, and also that statements might not be communicated to a prisoner as to a particular charge which is not intended to be brought against
  1370
  him. I am afraid it is not clear that I have exactly succeeded in hitting the difficulty, and hon. Members who know anything of our Criminal Law will see that this is not a very easy thing to do. I am therefore willing to withdraw these words at the present moment, but I will consider the matter before the Report stage. Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in accepting the Amendment in the form in which it now stands; but I am willing that, for the present, the words of my Amendment should be withdrawn as being amenable to some of the criticism they have received.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish it to be clearly understood that we are no parties to any bargain to the effect that because the Government agree that statements made at these private inquiries may be used on behalf of the prisoners, therefore they may be used in favour of the Crown. I do not admit it to be logical that because they may be used for the prisoner, they may, therefore, be used for the Crown. Things may happen similar to that what occurred before Mr. Justice O'Brien in regard to an agrarian offence in Kerry. Several witnesses had come forward against the accused person at the Petty Sessions, and had made such a case against him that, on their evidence, he was returned for trial. When the case was heard before Mr. Justice O'Brien, the same witnesses stated that all the evidence they had given against the prisoner before the magistrates was perjury, and had not a word of truth in it, the result being that the case completely broke down, not one of the witnesses swearing to an incriminating fact against the man. Counsel for the Crown were allowed to cross-examine those witnesses from their own depositions, for the purpose of showing that they were committing perjury. They pursued that line of cross-examination at some length, and all the witnesses persisted in their allegation that what they had stated at the preliminary inquiry was perjury, and that the evidence they were then giving was the truth; and, in the absence of any other evidence, the Judge directed that the jury might find the prisoner guilty, and the prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to two years'

  1371
  imprisonment. I submit that it would be monstrous to tolerate this sort of thing, and I certainly protest against it.
  MR. CHANCE: I quite agree with what has just fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy).
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON(who was received with cries of "Divide!"): I can readily conceive that hon. Gentlemen opposite should cry "Divide!" when hon. Gentlemen around me are so impatient. I desire to point out that the Crown and the prisoner are not in the same position with regard to these depositions. All we ask is that the counsel representing the prisoner shall receive a copy of the depositions which are placed in the hands of the Crown. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"]
  Proposed Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—namely, to insert, after the word "recognizance" inline 17, the words—
  "Provided, always, that the examination shall be conducted in such a manner only as it would be conducted if such person examined were giving evidence in support of a charge against some person for committing the offence in respect of which the inquiry shall be held."
  My first object in moving this Amendment is this—that the examination shall be strictly confined to the offences mentioned in the Attorney General's order; my second object is, that the examination shall be confined to those matters which are evidence, and shall be conducted in such a way as would be observed if the examination were against a person accused of the offence which is mentioned in the Attorney General's order. If this is done, a Resident Magistrate will not be able to cross-examine a person who is summoned, or will he be able to put questions which are catching questions, but examine him exactly in the same way as the Attorney General would himself examine the same person if that person were giving evidence in support of a charge for the offence. I know that the Act of 1882 will probably be quoted against my Amendment; but may I point out to the Committee that it is a very strange thing that, in this Bill, one word which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) expressly put into his Act of Parliament is de-
  1372
  signedly omitted from this; it is a strange thing that in this section the word evidence does not occur. The phrase used in this Bill is "may examine on oath concerning such offence," which, of course, is using as loose and as wide language as can possibly be employed; in the Act of 1882 the words used were —"a person who can give material evidence in connection with the offence." What is the object of this Bill? It is to allow the Government to become possessed of evidences. Why should they not take it in such a way as would commend itself to the people of Ireland? This is supposed to be a perpetual amendment of the Criminal Law of Ireland; it is not confined, as the Act of 1882 was confined, to a limited period; but it is to be put for ever upon the Statute Book with regard to Ireland. As has been already pointed out, there was a special Preamble to the Act of 1882, which justified the passing of that Act for a limited time: but in this Bill there is no Preamble, unless it be that the Government are prepared to accept this position—that the mention of the word "Ireland" is a sufficient Preamble for departing from the ordinary course with regard to criminal procedure. I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1,line 17, after "recognizance," insert —"Provided, always, that the examination shall be conducted in such a manner only as it would be conducted if such person examined were giving evidence in support of a charge against some person for committing the offence in respect of which the inquiry shall be held." (Mr. Warmington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): As I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warmington) desires these words to be inserted for two purposes. One is, that the examination shall be concerning the offence mentioned in the order. It' he looks at the portion of the clause that has already passed through Committee, he will find the examination is described as one relating to the offence. That, certainly, is much more specific than anything the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes in his Amendment. Then, the

  1373
  hon. and learned Gentleman desires that the examination shall be conducted as if there was a person accused. It is wholly impossible that the examination can be taken in that way. The Laws of Evidence in this country are all relative to the particular matter and the particular person concerned in the case, and these inquiries cannot be conducted as if there was a person charged with an offence. The present words of the clause seem to me to be quite sufficient to guide the magistrate as to the character of the questions to be asked. The hon. and learned Gentleman has attributed to the Government some very deep object in not using the word "evidence," which was in the clause of 1882. There could not be any deep or hidden object in that, because the Government very readily accepted the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler)—namely, to insert the words "whom he has reason to believe to be capable of giving material evidence concerning such offence."
  MR. CHANCE: I must confess I am unable to follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes). The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warmington), in proposing this Amendment, is to prevent the putting of misleading or catching questions— surely a very proper thing to prevent. The Attorney General for Ireland, however, desires to retain for the magistrates the power of putting totally irrelevant questions. Every day and every hour we discuss on this Bill, we get further evidence of the real intentions of the Government. We know it is very generally alleged that, at some secret inquiries held under the Act of 1882, witnesses were asked questions totally unconnected with any particular offence, and in some cases bribed to answer, We desire to safeguard this section as much as possible. If the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who, at the present moment, advises the Treasury Bench, have a log to stand on, why do they not get up and argue the point?
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: In order to save discussion, may I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warmington) should look at Amendment No. 59, which is to add at the end of line 17—
  1374
  "Such witness may only be examined concerning such offence, and shall not be examined concerning any other matter or subject whatsoever."
  I recognize the contention of the Government, that the inquiry cannot be conducted as if it was an inquiry into the guilt of a particular person charged with a particular offence; but I think there ought to be some provision of a negative character—some provision that the inquiry shall not be a roving inquiry by a magistrate, but shall be confined to the offence, or the matter in relation to which the inquiry is held. Are the Government prepared to accept the Amendment No. 59, or an Amendment in substantially similar words? If so, I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should consider whether he should persist in his Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Before this discussion arose, we had considered Amendment No. 59, in connection with this Amendment, and we had decided to accept Amendment No, 59, with modifications. We think the negative words of the Amendment are too stringent. We would accept the Amendment if it ran somewhat like this—
  "Such witness can only be examined as to matters which, in the opinion of the magistrate holding the inquiry, relate to the offence and subject matter of the inquiry."
  If those words were accepted, I think the view which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) has expressed, would be attained. We cannot, however, agree to such a general Amendment as that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warmington).
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: But the words of the Attorney General would leave the matter absolutely to the discretion of the Resident Magistrate. Suppose that a Magistrate puts an utterly unreasonable question, having no relation to the particular offence or the particular subject, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General says—that at this juncture the shorthand notes will come in and play a very important part, because thereupon we should have the question and answer set forth, and if the question was not a proper one to be put to the witness and he had been committed to prison for not answering the question, he would have his remedy. Now, if the suggestion of

  1375
  the Attorney General is accepted, the witness would not have a remedy, because the magistrate would hold and find as a fact that it was in his opinion right and proper that the question should be put, because it related to the subject-matter of the inquiry. The witness would be entirely without protection and the magistrate would be without any check. I therefore submit for the Attorney General's further consideration, although I admit it is a little premature I interposed for the purpose of trying to shorten the discussion—that the words "and shall not be examined concerning any other matter or subject whatever" should be allowed to remain. If these words are allowed to remain and the proper exercise of judgment comes into question, the Court can judge whether the magistrate was or was not within his right.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I am afraid I cannot except the suggestion just made. My objection is not simply with regard to the scope of the inquiry, but it is to undue examination. I desire that the examination should be restricted, so that only evidence shall be extracted in a proper way; that the Resident Magistrate shall not be at liberty to put leading questions, or to cross-examine a person who is summoned before him. Therefore, to limit the Amendment in the way suggested will not in any way meet my objection. I cannot withdraw my Amendment, or agree to its being limited as suggested.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: What the Attorney General suggests amounts to this—that the Government agree that a question not relevant to the inquiry shall not be asked, unless the Resident Magistrate says it is relevant to the inquiry; that is practically the offer the hon. and learned Gentleman makes to us. Of course, that does not directly arise on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warmington), in regard to which Amendment I wish to know whether the Government insist that to these secret inquiries that none of the ordinary rules of evidence which prevail in Courts of Law shall apply? Let me give an example. In a Court of Law, hearsay evidence is not admissible. Is such evidence to be admissible at these inquiries? The Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) says that an inquiry under this section cannot
  1376
  be conducted as an inquiry would, if there was a person charged with the offence. Is it to be contended that, at an inquiry of this kind, a magistrate can ask questions such as this—"Did you over hear A B murdered so and so?" I respectfully submit that the Committee should insist that there should be a check of some kind imposed upon the action of the magistrate. The whole contention of the Treasury Bench in the discussion upon this clause is that they will not put any chock whatever on the magistrate. Everything is to be subjected to the discretion of the Resident Magistrates. Our experience of these gentlemen prompts us not to accept the view of the Government that the magistrates should have absolute discretion in matters of this kind.
  MR. MAHONY: It appears to me it is all the more important to press some such Amendment as that now before the Committee, because it is perfectly clear the Government do intend that these inquiries should go beyond matters relating to actual offences. The Government have evinced a desire to revise the shorthand noted before they are made public. If during these secret inquiries, merely crime is to be inquired into, there can be no possible reason for revising the Amendment No. 52 which has been agreed to, yet the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has distinctly reserved to himself the right to propose some Amendment to that Amendment.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: With reference to the words proposed to be added by the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), allow me to call attention to the words of the section as it originally stood, and ask the hon. and learned Gentleman as a lawyer, whether or not the protection of the witness is not greater under the section than under the words he proposes. The words of the section are, "and examine on oath concerning such offence."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is anticipating the Amendment No. 59. We are considering Amendment No. 53.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Many remarks sprang out of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), Now, Amendment 53 merely provides that the magistrate holding the inquiry must examine a witness upon oath con-

  1377
  cerning the offence, and that he must in the examination observe the ordinary rules of evidence. Why there should be any objection, in the case of a semi-legal tribunal of this sort, to putting the fullest possible instructions before the mind of the person conducting the inquiry I cannot understand. I think the Committee would do well to adopt the Proviso contained in this Amendment, and thus afford only proper protection to a witness summoned before this Court.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can see the force of what the Attorney General for Ireland has said— that you cannot confine this inquiry to the same strict rule that it would be confined, if one individual were charged. But there are certain rules of evidence which would be observed whoever was charged. Suppose a magistrate has a witness before him whom he wishes to examine, and he says—"Now do you know anything about this offence; do you know who did it, or anything concerning the doing of it? "The man says, "No, I do not." Then the magistrate might ask him, "Did you ever hear anybody else say anything about it?" That is a question which would not be admissible where a person was charged. I should like to ask the Attorney General, whether questions of that character would be admissible at the inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is quite evident, by a subsequent Amendment, that the Government intend that the Crown should use hearsay evidence. Was anything more absurd ever provided? These inquiries ought to be conducted in a lawyer-like manner and according to the rules of evidence. Once you depart from this course, you embark upon a sea of trouble. These inquiries, although conducted by cavalry men, half-pay officers, militiamen, and horse marines, should be conducted with some regard to the ordinary decencies of judicial life. Of course, you cannot expect a horse marine to take the same view of legal questions as a legally trained man; but, at any rate, we are entitled to know whether the Government intend that hearsay evidence shall be accepted. But, if so, these judicial inquiries would be reduced to a farce.
  MR. HOLMES: I think it would be perfectly legitimate that a question of
  1378
  the nature suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) should be put. It ought to be borne in mind that there is no accused person before the tribunal, and that it is the duty of the person presiding over the inquiry to put any question which will, in any way, lead to the detection of the crime. I quite admit that the Question put must be concerning the crime in respect of which the inquiry is held; and, of course, on the trial of a prisoner, no Judge would permit hearsay evidence to be used against any person whatever.
  MR. ANDERSON: The other day the Committee was told by the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) that the procedure provided by this section was part of the Constitutional Law of Scotland. That was loudly cheered by hon. Members opposite; but now we hear from the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), what he means by this Constitutional Law of Scotland. This inquiry is to be held secretly, and carried on in every way contrary to what we understand is the Constitutional Law of this country and of Scotland too in regard to evidence. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD dissented.] The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) has thrown a good deal of light upon this discussion, for he has shaken his head when statements have been made with regard to the Law of Scotland. I trust, however, that this debate will be enlivened by some observations from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Anyhow, we heard from the Solicitor General for Scotland, that this practice is not really the law of Scotland, but there is some sort of trace or form of it. The power has never been used, so said the Solicitor General for Scotland. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD again dissented.] The Lord Advocate shakes his head again; but I have got a very valuable work here, by a person of the name of Macdonald.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman must speak to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid I have been led astray by the silence of the Lord Advocate. We are discussing two most important questions, and it is right we should have some guidance from one

  1379
  of the Law Officers who are assisting the Crown in respect to this measure—the Law Officers for England, Ireland, and Scotland. By this Amendment a most important point is raised. The statement we have heard from the Attorney General for Ireland lets us into the secret that there is to be a private inquiry, and, that the rules of evidence are not to be observed in any way—that, in fact, persons are to be subjected to a regular inquisition. That is the object of the inquiry. ["No, no!"] The Lord Advocate seems to dissent from that. Will he get up and tell us that this has its origin in a Statute? I ask him further—[Interruption, continued for some time.] I beg, Sir, to move that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Keep your gang quiet then.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a long speech on the Amendment—[An hon. MEMBER: Two minutes.]—which had already been fully discussed, and without rhyme or reason he concludes the speech by moving the adjournment of the discussion. Does the Committee think that that Motion is justified by any enormous progress with Public Business that we have made to-night, or has anything else happened in to-night's discussion which renders it desirable that we should report Progress? I do not think so, and it is perfectly impossible for us to accede to the Motion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In asking that this Motion may not be pressed, I must say that I do not agree with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that we have made no progress. While I have been present to-night, a great many Amendments have been disposed of, a large number being assented to by the Government. I cannot, therefore, agree that we have not made progress, neither could I agree with anyone who contended that our Business had not been conducted in a satisfactory manner. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr.
  1380
  Anderson) will not proceed at greater length than is necessary, if he is allowed to finish his speech.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have disposed of 33 Amendments in the absence of hon. Members opposite. We do not require the attendance of those hon. Gentlemen here at all, speaking of them collectively, and if they are impatient I would recommend them to go away. All they seem to do is to prevent speeches being heard in this direction. We, on our part, desire that this debate should be proceeded with in a regular manner, as it has hitherto gone on to-night, before the hon. Gentlemen opposite came in from their dinner. If this Motion is withdrawn, I hope they will be kept quiet.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not wish to waste time by pressing on this Motion. I will point out that I was discussing, I hope not at undue length, this clause— I was referring to a matter which I think has not yet been mentioned in this Committee, and one which is of the greatest importance. Though it may not be of interest to hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who have just come in, and who are anxious to go to bed, yet they must remember that we have a duty to perform. We do not wish to perform that duty to the extent of wearying the Committee, however. My point is this—and I think every fair minded man in the Committee will see how important it is—will the Lord Advocate who brings forward this clause as part of the law of Scotland tell us whether it is founded upon any Statute? Will he tell us whether it was founded on the civil law or common law? I venture to think that it is not founded in any way upon these two. I will venture to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what it is founded upon. It is founded upon the canon law established for the purpose of bringing the Roman Inquisition into power. We are now told that it is to be introduced into the law of Ireland for the purpose of carrying on the Inquisition in that country which it used to carry on in Rome. I hope this Amendment will be carried to a Division unless the Government give way, and that I sincerely trust they will do.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ASHER (, &c): I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warmington) will press this Amendment. It appears to me to be directed to establishing a rule in connection with the preliminary examination on oath contemplated by this clause which cannot fail to be advantageous. My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Anderson) has referred to the law of Scotland. "Well, the position of the law of Scotland in regard to this matter has been frequently explained to the Committee. It has been frequently stated that a preliminary inquiry on oath is competent in Scotland; but, at the same time, such inquiries are not of common occurrence in Scotland now. I think it right to say that at no time, so far as I know, was this practice of preliminary examination upon oath ever permitted according to the law of Scotland, except on the lines set out in this Amendment. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is intended to produce this result, that in a preliminary examination upon oath only such questions shall be put to the witness as could competently be put to a witness if he were being examined as a witness on a trial. Now that, undoubtedly, has always been the law of Scotland; but I should be sorry to allow that to rest entirely upon my statement, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will read a passage from Sir Archibald Alison's Practice of the Criminal Law in Scotland, the authority of which I am sure the Lord Advocate will acknowledge. Sir Archibald Alison, in dealing with this matter, speaking of the preliminary examination on oath, says—
  "In discharging this delicate duty of compelling witnesses to appear and depone in a precognition, and of putting them on oath, or committing them to prison if they refuse to take the oath or to answer questions, it is the duty of the Judge as nearly as possible to walk by the rules of evidence which will ultimately be followed at the trial. There seems, therefore, no authority which can justify a Magistrate in tendering an oath to a wife against her husband or against any party with whom he is implicated in one common offence, or to a husband against a wife in similar circumstances, or to an adult child who refuses to depone against its parent, or to any child under the age when it can be legally sworn, or in compelling a child under that age to declare against its parent. As such proceedings would he illegal if attempted in open Court and when the accused is on his trial, so they seem to be equally exceptionable in the
  1382
  secret but equally regular and important investigations which precede that event: not to mention the prejudice which would accrue to the accused if information were thus to be extracted from his nearest and dearest relations which could not be brought against him directly from them when on trial for the crime; and the opinion of the prosecutors in determining on the case, were to be liable to the bias unavoidably incurred by reading important depositions which cannot ultimately be brought against him. No steps of coercion should therefore be adopted against witnesses in a precognition, except such, persons and in relation to such questions as are competent to be examined or put at the trial. It is quite a different matter examining such witnesses when they come forward voluntarily or, though cited, state no objection to emitting their declaration."
  The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend would, I think, effect this—that in the case of the preliminary inquiry on oath, it would not be in the power of the magistrate to put any question to a witness which it would not have been competent to put to him if he were being examined as a witness, giving evidence at a trial. The clause, I understand, is intended merely to secure that evidence shall be obtained from persons who will not voluntarily make their statements— persons possessed of knowledge which they are withholding—and it is difficult to see why the magistrates should have the power of getting anything more than legal evidence from witnesses put on oath before them, seeing that when the trial comes on, all that can be done is to put to the witness such questions as the ordinary Law of Evidence will allow.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am very unwilling to join in this discussion, knowing, from, having read his speech in the papers, that the Solicitor General for Scotland has stated the law of Scotland with great accuracy and clearness in this House already. I do not desire to put in my word merely to take up the time of the House in repeating a statement which I believe to have been perfectly correct, and which nothing that my hon. and learned Friend has said impugns in the slightest degree; and though I must say that Alison, to whom my hon. and learned Friend has referred, has not always been looked upon as the best and most accurate authority at the time at which he wrote on our Criminal Law, there is nothing in the general statement which he made in the passage which my hon. and learned Friend has read out to which I take any

  1383
  exception—certainly not any serious exception—at all. In conducting these inquiries in private the Laws of Evidence in regard to witnesses whom it is competent to examine at a trial are the same as at a trial. It would not be possible to bring the wife of a man to be accused of a crime to give evidence against him —it would not be possible to take a man's wife and put her on oath and examine her in reference to that crime; but my hon. and learned Friend seems to forget that we are not dealing here with the case in which a husband is charged or a wife is charged with a crime, or in which a question can be raised whether the wife can be examined against her husband, or the husband can be examined against his wife. We are dealing with the case in which no person is yet charged. [An hon. MEMBER: But persons may be charged.] We are dealing with an inquiry for the purpose of finding out whether anybody can be charged, and if so what person it is. Well, in making that inquiry you can apply no such rules of evidence as those my hon. and learned Friend has referred to, because if you hear of a woman who is said to know something about a crime that has been committed, you cannot, by any possibility, tell before you examine her whether it may not turn out that when you are examining somebody else after her that her husband will be the person to be charged with the crime. Therefore, the case my hon. and learned Friend quotes is not a case in point at all; because the case in Alison is the case of an inquiry conducted where some person is already charged with a crime. You are not in such a case to examine a man's wife on oath, or if it is a woman who is charged, you are not to examine her husband on oath; but in what Alison says—that you are in a judicial proceeding to conduct the inquiry according to the Laws of Evidence, I concur thoroughly, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend and other members of the Legal Profession will agree with me—that that is a sound statement of the law. Still, it is quite common in these inquiries, as my hon. and learned Friend knows well enough, to ask questions of witnesses which it might be incompetent to put in Court. For instance, it is perfectly competent in such an inquiry to ascertain from witnesses, by what is called "hearsay," whether any other
  1384
  person has been heard speaking about the case for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is necessary to have other witnesses summoned and brought up in order to be examined. The evidence is taken, not for the purpose of conducting a trial, but for aiding or perhaps conducting an inquiry to discover witnesses who will be sufficient to prove the case. There is nothing at all inconsistent with what the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland said on a previous occasion, in what has been read by my hon. and learned Friend opposite, nor is there anything in the latter to justify the proposition which is contained in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member—namely, that the whole inquiry must necessarily be conducted as if a person were under charge. Let me point out that if the examination of a person is to be conducted as though someone was under charge, it would be a great deal worse for the person who would be under examination, because if complete examination were to take place, as would be the case at a trial, the character of the examination would be unfair to a person giving evasive answers. An inquiry of this kind should be conducted in a calm and quiet manner, and not in the least in the manner in which examinations take place before a Judge. My hon. and learned Friend opposite knows perfectly well how examinations take place at a trial, and he must see that inquiries under this clause must be conducted in a manner very different to such cross-examinations, for instance, as I know hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite would be inclined to subject hostile witnesses to in a Court of Law. No pressure ought to he used upon a witness, and in Scotland no pressure is used. I venture to say, without the least fear of contradiction, that such an accusation as that one of the Public Prosecutors in Scotland in making one of these preliminary inquiries has unduly pressed a witness, is a thing so extremely rare that if it exists at all it is just the exception which proves the rule. No administration can be absolutely perfect; but I believe that the working of this system is one of the most perfectly fair exercises of the right of examination in private which could possibly be, and for the hon. Gentleman opposite to compare it to proceedings of the Inquisition—which

  1385
  he has done twice to-night in the course of two speeches he has made—certainly shows the extravagance of those who are not perfectly familiar with the working of our present system. I am sure the late hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland does not for one moment mean to suggest as a general rule—notwithstanding that there may be small exceptions with which those who are in the position of looking after Scotland have to find fault—that precognitions are not conducted with great fairness. They are conducted with a desire to obtain a fair statement of what the witness is to depone to, and it is only in very rare cases where there is reason to believe that persons are withholding their statements that people are put on oath. I wish to take this opportunity of correcting a statement made in this House some time ago to the effect that putting a person on oath in a precognition is a thing not known in Scotland. I contradict that distinctly. I say that in recent years, and that under the late Lord Advocate and late Solicitor General for Scotland, sitting opposite to me, it has been done by their own Deputes, when thought to be necessary. I know it also from a Judge now on the Bench that he and another Judge have both put it in practice during the past 25 years.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure we are very much indebted to the Lord Advocate for his very clear and satisfactory statement as to the law of Scotland and its administration. I understand that the object of this Amendment is to, as nearly as possible, assimilate the law in this Bill to that which he has laid down as the practice in Scotland. Now, the illustration which he has given of the incompetence of the magistrates at an inquiry to take the statement of a wife against her husband, where the latter is charged with an offence, does not apply, according to his argument, because I understand him to say that if no person is charged, then that evidence may be practically got against the same person—that is to say, against the husband of the wife. It may not be usual, but it may be competent to get it. Suppose a person is suspected of an offence, and his wife is called to give evidence, because the man is not actually charged is the woman to be compelled to say everything she knows about him, because, if that is so,
  1386
  you practically get the evidence of the woman against her husband? You get the evidence of the woman against the man because no actual charge is made, which you would not be allowed to do if a charge was made. I gather from the Lord Advocate that that would not be allowed in Scotland. I understand that the wife would not be capable of being examined against her husband if a charge wore made, and that she would not be allowed to be examined against her husband, as even though no charge is made the husband may be suspected of a crime. As I understand the object of this Amendment, it is to provide in these words, or in some other words equivalent to them, that examinations before Resident Magistrates in Ireland shall, like the examinations under the Scotch law be governed by the general and fundamental Laws of Evidence. That is really the principle. We wish for some intimation from the Government that the persons who use the powers contained in this Bill shall be governed by the general and fundamental Laws of Evidence. I understand, though I do not think the Lord Advocate mentioned it—it was mentioned in a former debate by the hon. Member for Elgin, I think —that in Scotland this power is exercised under check, that is to say, that the Procurator Fiscal, who would conduct the examination, would conduct it in the presence of the Sheriff. I am told that that is so, and that the Sheriff would see that no irregularities took place in reference to the evidence that is permitted. Now, if that is so—
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The Sheriff is responsible when the charge is made; but in our practice the Procurator Fiscal takes these precognitions without the presence of the Sheriff, who only comes in when it is necessary to compel witnesses.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say—and I do not understand my right hon. and learned Friend to dissent from that—that the Sheriff is the controlling officer, and that the Procurator Fiscal is acting under his directions very much as the Solicitor to the Treasury acts for our Attorney General. That is so; then I do not think there is any material difference. What you want is some form of words which will indicate to persons

  1387
  very few of whom may be lawyers— who, in fact, are not, in general, lawyers —that they ought to govern themselves in the exercise of these powers by the general Law of Evidence, and not travel out of it.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I only wish to add one observation in this very dry discussion on Scotch law. There seems to me, with great respect for the Attorney General for Ireland, to be a fundamental distinction to be drawn between what is known as precognition in Scotland and this inquiry in Ireland. I point this out, because I hope that that fairness which generally characterizes the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now operate in his mind. When a man is examined in Scotland, he is entitled to insist that the deposition he has given on precognition shall be destroyed. He cannot be prosecuted, under any circumstances, for perjury. Now, this Bill, as I find at the end of the 1st clause, provides that the statement of any person under the section—
  "Shall not, except in the case of an indictment or other criminal proceeding for perjury, be admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding, civil or criminal."
  I want to point out to the Attorney General for Ireland why I think it is of vital importance, for two reasons, that hearsay evidence should not be admissible. In the first place, if hearsay evidence be admissible in what I will term precognition by way of comparison, then evidence may be admitted of an extraneous character, which can be brought to bear upon a witness to a certain extent; and I do not think it is an exaggerated way of speaking to say that this evidence would be held in terrorem over him, Though that evidence might not be germane to the subject of inquiry, the witness might be proceeded against. It seems to me that the strict rules of evidence should be followed, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke on this side of the House. Sir Archibald Alison points out that every protection is given to witnesses against oppressive proceedings. He points out clearly that this inquiry has only been used in Scotland for the purpose of affording information to the Crown Officials for ulterior purposes of investigation; but here it is something more. A power is vested in the Crown for examination, which they may exer-
  1388
  cise for the purpose of getting information from a witness which can be used against him. Therefore, I venture respectfully to differ from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, believing that there is a marked difference in tins matter.
  MR. MAHONY: The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate for Scotland gave us a true picture of the law in Scotland. It is because we know, from past experience, what the administration of law in Ireland is, that we want to press this Amendment. The Lord Advocate has said that, in his opinion, no pressure should be applied; and he has added that in Scotland there is no power to prosecute for perjury in respect of evidence given on a precognition. Now, the threat of a prosecution for perjury is a very powerful weapon with which pressure can be brought to bear upon a witness. I will give an instance to show this. At one of the inquiries which took place under the Act of 1882, a witness was examined on one or two days. He gave evidence at great length and in great detail in answer to the questions put to him by Mr., now Judge, Curran. At the end of his evidence, Judge Curran told him that he had reason to know that his evidence was perfectly false, and that he had committed perjury, and therefore he gave him 24 hours to consider his position. At the end of the 24 hours, Judge Curran told him he would give him an opportunity of giving other evidence. The witness, accordingly, at the end of the 24 hours, or the specified time, appeared again before Judge Curran, and gave perfectly different evidence, and on that evidence the prisoners were prosecuted and convicted. If the Government do not accept my statement, I am sure that Judge Curran, who was then Mr. Curran, will confirm it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: This Amendment is of great importance, and its importance is greatly enhanced by the declaration of the Government that they intend that any declarations taken at a secret inquiry shall afterwards be used to confront the witnesses at the trial. The Attorney General for Ireland has declared that questions which would be excluded as hearsay evidence on an ordinary trial are proper evidence at an inquiry under this section. The effect of that would be that hearsay evi-

  1389
  dence might be used at the trial of a prisoner charged with an offence. How would that happen? In this way. If a witness on the trial of an accused person were confronted with his own deposition at the previous inquiry, and it should turn out that the deposition was inconsistent with the evidence, that deposition might be put in evidence; and if the deposition be put in evidence for that purpose, the whole of the deposition may be, and must be, read against the prisoner. Therefore, it comes to this— we will take it that a witness makes a statement incriminating A B. That witness is afterwards examined on the trial of A B. Then he makes certain statements inconsistent with the evidence given in his deposition. The deposition is then put in to contradict the evidence given at the trial, and in that way is made evidence against the prisoner. The effect is that not merely that portion of the deposition which contradicts the evidence of the witness given at the trial is evidence against the prisoner, but the whole deposition is admitted, including any hearsay evidence which the Resident Magistrate may have admitted. That makes this Amendment one of an exceedingly important character. I do not think anyone would assert that it is reasonable or proper that hearsay evidence should be put in against a prisoner at a trial; and if this clause, as it is drawn, enables that to be done, it is a reason why it should be rejected or amended.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 193: Noes 272: Majority 79,—(Div. List, No. 115.) [12.40 A.M.]
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and I beg to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to accede to that Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I shall be very glad to report Progress as soon as we get to the end of this 1st sub-section of the clause. I trust that it may not take more than a very few minutes to dispose of.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI should like to know, as regards the possibility of finishing this Is sub-section to-night, how many of our Amendments the Government are going to accept? If they do not accept our Amendments, we shall take some time; but if they take my Amendments in a batch, we may soon finish.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather surprised at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, for, on looking at the Paper, I find no less than nine Amendments still on the Paper with regard to this 1st sub-section of the clause. It is ridiculous to propose that we should, at I in the morning, run hastily through them—every one of them being of considerable importance. I think the right hon. Gentleman does not meet the Committee in anything like a fair spirit. To-night we have got through a larger number of Amendments than we have done at any previous Sitting; and I could oven go further, and say that we have gone through more Amendments this evening than were ever got through in respect of a Coercion Bill in the same time. The right hon. Gentleman shows very little gratitude for the very generous and forbearing spirit in which the Committee have met him to-night. There has not been a single Amendment discussed, I will not say at undue length— I will even say that our debates on several important Amendments have been curtailed to meet the right hon. Gentleman in a spirit of give and take, so as not to give him a decent excuse for saying that the debates have unduly delayed the Business of the House. If he perseveres, he is the master of many legions, and will overcome our opposition; but if we do proceed, we shall consider it our duty to discuss these Amendments in proportion to their importance, and with no regard to the hour of the night.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the harmony of the evening is not going to be disturbed, I should rather gather, from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, anticipating that in a very short time this sub-section will be finished, that he and his Friends will take a favourable view of the eight or nine Amendments on the Paper. I

  1391
  think we might go on and see how far those Amendments are likely to be accepted. I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) has an Amendment with regard to the Law of Evidence that might very likely displace some other Amendments. At all events, we might see how we got on, instead of coming to a conflict on the question of reporting Progress.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have no wish to press the Motion for reporting Progress now, though there is another matter which I hope I shall have an opportunity of discussing.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I now propose, in page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert—
  "The summons served on a witness under this section shall set forth the date and nature of the offence respecting which information is sought, the name of the person who alleges that the witness can furnish information thereupon, the hour and place at which the inquiry is to he holden, and the magistrate who is to conduct it."
  This Amendment will, no doubt, have to be modified to render it consistent with previous determinations at which the Committee have arrived; but I think it cannot be denied that there are certain cases in which a summons ought to issue, and that this summons should contain certain information. You have negatived, I admit, the principle that a summons shall, in all cases, issue, since the Government have pointed out that a summons may not be issued in all cases; because a warrant may be issued in some cases. My proposition is that when a summons is issued—and there are certain cases in which a summons will issue—it should provide for certain things and contain information on certain points. I should like to hoar what the Attorney General for Ireland has to say on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): To remove any doubt on this point, I will move, at the proper time, to insert in a Schedule to the Bill the form of summons we propose, and which will, I hope, fulfil the object the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In that case, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will now propose, in page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert—
  "No witness shall he kept waiting more than two hours without being examined; and, if so detained without examination, may depart without further liability to being summoned in reference to the same offence."
  I propose this Amendment, because I do not think that a witness should be kept waiting an unreasonable time before being examined. What happens? You summon men in clusters, and keep them waiting; taken from their employment without reason or necessity. I do not think you ought to attempt to do more than a day's work in a day. You should not summon more witnesses than you want or can examine. If the Government will give an assurance that they will not allow a whole country side to be summoned from their work at once, and without there being any possibility of them all being examined in a reasonable time, then I will not press this Amendment; but there is a real necessity for some provision that witnesses should not be kept from their work an unreasonable time without having an opportunity to go away.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, at end, insert—"No witness shall be kept waiting more than two hours without being examined; and, if so detained without examination, may depart without further liability to being summoned in reference to the same offence."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): This is one of the things which must be left to the discretion of the Resident Magistrate. It is impossible to say that a witness must not be kept in attendance more than a certain time; because it may easily happen that the examination of a previous witness or witnesses lasts longer than was expected, and in that case it may be necessary to detain a subsequent witness until he can be examined. It would be very inconvenient in such a case if he was allowed to go away because a fixed time had elapsed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In the case put by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the magistrate may give a fresh summons. [Some cries of"Oh, oh!"] It is easy to cry "Oh;" but how do Gen-

  1393
  tlemen like being kept hero now? Are hon. Members opposite ready to remain here two hours longer? All I pay is, that witnesses ought to be allowed to depart, just as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may be allowed to depart. Because these people are poor and wear frieze coats, why are they to be treated with less care than persons who are created Baronets by Her Majesty's Government? I am very fond of Baronets, but I do not see why we should treat poor people with more discourtesy than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. I have suggested that the limit should be two hours; but the principle of the thing is the point to which I attach importance, and if four hours is preferred, I should not object to it. We ought, however, to have some limit put in.
  MR. CONYBEARE: My experience of magistrates, especially of the great unpaid in this country, leads mo to the conviction that this Amendment is very necessary. Certainly, it is necessary if it is held to apply to the case of magistrates keeping witnesses waiting, when they come two hours late, a circumstance which frequently happens in this country. I should like to see an Amendment going a great deal beyond this one. I should like to see an Amendment requiring magistrates to take their seats punctually, and not keep witnesses waiting, and I should be inclined to add a Proviso, that if the magistrate did keep "witnesses or others waiting for two hours, or even for half-an-hour at the commencement of the proceedings, he should be guilty of misdemeanour, and punished accordingly. I think that if the Government refuse to admit the principle for which we contend of this Amendment it will be desirable, at any rate, to provide that the witnesses shall be compensated for the waste of time to which they are all subjected. The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken reminded the House that these witnesses are, in all probability, poor men, and it will also be recollected that their means of subsistence depends upon the amount of work they can do in the day. This is not the case with hon. Members opposite, and although it may be amusing to them, it is a matter of the utmost moment to these poor men. [Cries of" Divide!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is of the greatest moment. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"]— Mr. Courtney, I beg leave to move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move to report Progress?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Conybeare.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I trust the hon. Gentleman will not put the Committee to the trouble and loss of time incurred by a Division. The Government cannot consent to report Progress, and the Motion will therefore only expose the Committee to great delay.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I hope I may be allowed to make this observation. I quite appreciate the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) in moving his Amendment; but I would point out that it is not really practicable in my judgment to introduce such a provision. However fairly and honestly the Act may be administered, it is impossible to avoid some inconvenience to witnesses, either on account of the unexpected prolongation of the examination of a previous witness, or from other causes. The only means of checking abuses of this Act would be to call public attention to them in this House. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford whether he could not withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I moved to report Progress in consequence of the unruly conduct of supporters of Her Majesty's Government. I think it is perfectly well understood in this House that when I got up to speak, I intend to speak, and that under no circumstances will I allow myself to be howled down. All I can say is this—that if the conduct which we have seen and heard from that side of the House is continued without any reason whatever, and if the Government do not take the trouble to keep their own supporters in order, I shall invariably move to report Progress. If I desire to speak on any other subject this evening, and find I am interrupted in the same way, I

  1395
  shall move to report Progress in the same way, and if it becomes necessary for me to again make a Motion of this kind, I shall not do what I am now asked to be allowed to do, to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) has spoken with some slight freedom in regard to this Amendment. I wonder if he is acquainted with the provisions of the Petty Sessions Act, which provides that if the magistrate is not in attendance at the proper time, the Clerk may adjourn the proceedings. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member to say the thing is impracticable. I tell him that I have not proposed any Amendment in the nature of anything like Obstruction, nor any Amendment except an Amendment required in the nature of the case; and I do think it is a little hard on us who have sat down and sweated over this Bill, and spent hours drafting Amendments to it in order to mitigate the severity of its provisions, to be told that our Amendments are impracticable. I must say this sort of thing makes a man tired. If there are hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench not pleased to support our Amendments they should be pleased not to condemn them. I say this Amendment is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. The principle of it is already embodied in the Petty Sessions Act, which provides that if the magistrate does not turn up in time the witnesses shall not be kept waiting; and knowing what we do of the magistrates in Ireland, I submit that there is no reason why it should not be adopted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The form of summons proposed to be issued to witnesses will be included in a Schedule to the Bill, and one of the things mentioned in the summons will be the hour of attendance. If the magistrate does not put in an appearance at the time stated he will certainly be guilty of neglect of duty. It is, however, quite possible that a witness may be kept waiting more than two hours, for the examination of the first witness may not be concluded in that time; but I would point out that we
  1396
  have accepted an Amendment that the examination of witnesses shall not begin after 6 o'clock, so that they cannot be kept waiting long after that hour. I would ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw this Amendment, and to consider under those circumstances, that we have given him real protection.
  DR. CLARK: I would call the attention of the House to the fact that in Scotland we sometimes have some very curious conditions of things. I happened to be down in the Hebrides during the Easter Recess, and a crofter complained bitterly to me that after going some distance to attend a Sheriff's Court, he had to wait until midnight to get his case tried, the reason for the delay being that the Sheriff went out shooting. I trust the hon. and learned Member will keep to his Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: If the form of the summons really enabled a witness to go away, I think the Government would welcome this Amendment, as it would give them two hours grace. But the fact is, the witnesses will be pitched into the police court, and kept there all day, and at six o'clock in the evening they will be taken to the police station and kept there all night, to be served up afresh the next morning. It will be disgraceful if such a power is given.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has overlooked the fact that this section applies not merely to witnesses summoned, but also to witnesses who are arrested. It is all very well in regard to witnesses who are summoned; but what about witnesses who are arrested. We have had no answer about them. What will happen to them? May I further call the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is not merely a question of hours. Under this question, a witness may be detained for days and weeks to suit the convenience of the Resident Magistrate. If the Government object to the limit of two hours proposed in the Amendment, or to that of four hours, to which the Member for North Longford is willing to extend it, will they be content to detain witnesses a day or a week? Let us have some limit, at all events, to the powers which the Resident Magistrates will have under this clause. It is not candid to deal with this matter

  1397
  as if it only related to witnesses who had been summoned.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I quite agree with the view that has been taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford, as to the possibility of considerable hardship arising under the operation of this clause. Still, I think my hon. and learned Friend must admit that the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) is a sound one. It is impossible, under all circumstances, to prevent cases of hardship arising; but if the light of public opinion is thrown upon these transactions, they would have to be carefully investigated. When advice in this sense is given by one who is so experienced in these affairs as my hon. and learned Friend near mo, and who is so anxious that all safeguards should be adopted, I think great weight should be attached to his opinion. The Attorney General for Ireland has told us that we are to have in a Schedule, or at some other time, the form and manner in which the summonses will be issued. It may be that when the form comes before the Committee we shall find some provision to meet the objection of the hon. and learned Member. In that view I trust the hon. and learned Member will consent to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have so much respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne that any suggestion from him would meet with my acceptance, even against my own judgment. I confess on the present occasion, it is against my judgment. I say the Amendment is an admirable one, although I am the author of it; nevertheless, I wish to withdraw it. We have a duty to perform here, and all I can say is that performing it and satisfying my own conscience is a great deal more to me than the opinions of hon. Members opposite.
  COLONEL NOLAN: We might now report Progress. I would ask some of the Members on this side of the House, if it is not now time for them to use their influence with the Government to allow us to enter on the consideration of the subject next on the Paper.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not know exactly where we are. I do not know
  1398
  whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford has withdrawn his Amendment, or whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway has moved to report Progress. Therefore, I wish to take a stand of my own. I move this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is still before the Committee. He has asked leave to withdraw it; but leave has not yet been given. When he has withdrawn it, there are several Amendments on the same point which must take precedence. Then you can move your Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to ask whether the discussion on the subsequent Amendments to which you have referred would prevent me moving an Amendment in reference to women and children being locked up in a police station under the powers taken by this clause? This is no Party Question, but a Question of purity and decency; and I trust the House will not be so degraded as to assent to this bringing of women and children away from their husbands and friends, and locking them up at night. It would be a disgrace to this Committee and to the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The withdrawal of the present Amendment would not stop the hon. Member from moving the Amendment to which he refers.
  MR. CHANCE: The moving of the subsequent Amendment might.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The moving of subsequent Amendments on the same subject might. I am not aware that such Amendments would be moved.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I find the proper way will be for mo to move an Amendment to this Amendment. It is as follows:—
  "That all the words after 'no' be omitted in order to insert 'no two witnesses shall be summoned for the same hour.'"
  I am perfectly—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot evade the Rules of the House in that way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. Is the Committee to understand that it is not open to any Member to move an Amendment to any Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is in order to move a bonâ fide Amendment to an Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I say it is bonâ fide.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I respectfully repeat my appeal. Half-an-hour has elapsed since I made the last appeal, and I renew it in no spirit of obstruction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am very sensible of the spirit in which the hon. Member makes the appeal, but I must remark to him and to the House that these are Amendments which might be disposed of in a very few minutes indeed. They are Amendments of a character which, assuming that the clause is to be passed at all, could be disposed of very rapidly indeed, and looking to the time occupied at this stage, I regret to say that I must ask the Committee to finish the subsection.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am really very much astonished at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot see what complaint he has to make. We have only spent a few minutes on my hon. Friend's Amendment, and he has offered to withdraw it in order to expedite Business. I would in future take care never to withdraw any Amendment whatever. All I can say is, that if my hon. Friend in future proposes to withdraw any well-considered Amendment, I shall endeavour to dissuade him from such a course, and oppose such a withdrawal if the Government maintain their present attitude.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I think the Committee is entitled to know what is considered a reasonable hour to adjourn those proceedings. I am sure we have spent a full night in a thoroughly business-like disposition making progress with the Bill. I protest that when an Amendment is brought forward, as was this of the hon. and learned Member, which really sought to meet the position of women and children who, it may be assumed, might under this section be summoned and de-
  1400
  tained over-night, it was nothing but reasonable that it should be submitted to the consideration of the Committee. Having regard to the fact that we are giving extraordinary power to the Government to deal with what they call extraordinary offences in Ireland, the Committee ought to have regard to the interest of the innocent people who might be brought up wholesale by these Resident Magistrates. [Cries of "Question!"] I am replying to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on the point, and I think nothing has been done against which any complaint of obstruction can reasonably be made. Now, when the hon. Member for Northampton makes an appeal on behalf of an important Bill that is to follow in the order of Business, I think the interest of the greatest number of Members would be consulted, that it would be pressing matters too far to expect us to go further, that all ends would be served by allowing us now to report Progress.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government have acted reasonably on several occasions to-night, and we have marked our sense of that reasonable spirit by being brief in our speeches, and by withdrawing a number of Amendments after short discussions. We have fully repaid the Government for their reasonable attitude by the speed of our progress. We have got over 33 Amendments, which is a large number. Why, I remember, during the discussions of the Crimes Act of 1882, during which I remember, too, that the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) never once lost his patience for the two months or so those discussions continued, I recollect that we kept him all one night upon two or three Amendments. True, we wore all suspended at the end of it; but that was because we had come to the end of a very considerable debate in Committee. Now, I appreciate there are good reasons for the position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up; but he must admit our position also. We say it is not fair to conduct debate under these conditions. [Cries of" Divide!"] I beg hon. Gentlemen to believe that when the House is more thinly attended, when we have only the English Attorney General present with a few of his Friends, we get on admirably; but when hon. Members return in numbers and cry

  1401
  "Divide!" as soon as we get into a little entanglement, there is no hope of making progress. These discussions necessarily take a conversational form, these debates have a sort of undress character, which lessens their interest to many hon. Members. We are now long past 1 o'clock, and if hon. Gentlemen will go away from, the House mid he prepared to return when the Division Bell rings, we may be able to discuss Business in a calm temper, and got on as we never can if they make a clamour and interrupt us with cries of "Divide!" I think the Government will find that the spirit displayed by the hon. and learned Attorney General has led to substantial progress. If the Government intend to go on—and personally I do not greatly mind if they do—let us do so in peace. Let us know whether the Government can meet us. Permit me to observe that as to the next two Amendments, so far as they have previously been discussed, the Government have declared it is not possible to make any concession. As to the next, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will deal with it. Now, I make this, which I consider a fair offer. I will not move the next two Amendments, but proceed to No. 58, which is a Proviso that the authority of the Attorney General for the holding of an inquiry shall name the witnesses to be examined. I am not going to discuss this Amendment on a Motion to report Progress; but I think it will be seen it is an Amendment having substance and bottom, and one that might fairly be considered by the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: May I venture to offer a suggestion. There is a very important Amendment I know my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) intends to move in reference to the examination of witnesses; but according to the rules of debate he could not move this until after No. 61; but if hon. Gentlemen who have Amendments before that had no objection, I imagine it might be moved now, and that would not preclude them from moving their Amendments afterwards if they thought fit. But if the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend is accepted, it will go a long way to remove the necessity for other Amendments; at all events, it is worth considering, and
  1402
  might facilitate progress to the end of the section.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course, we are unable to say anything about the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for South Hackney, because it is not on the Paper.
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) move this Amendment?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for South Hackney is going to move an Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to Order. If the right hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) puts his Amendment, which I understand would come after that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy), would the latter be able to move his Amendment afterwards?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; the power to move that Amendment will not be gone.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I will read the words of my Amendment, which would come in after the word "recognizance"—
  "Provided always that the examination shall be conducted as far as practicable in accordance with the ordinary rules of evidence, and such witnesses may be examined concerning such offences only, and shall not he examined concerning any other matter or subject whatsoever."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I consider this Amendment covers exactly the same point as that moved by the hon. and learned Member for West Monmouth (Mr. Warmington), from which it differs only by the addition of the words "so far as practicable." That does not make a sufficient distinction between the Amendments.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: May I say, on a point of Order, that the objection made to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was that the examinations might, in some instances, take a form and be attended by circumstances in which it would not be possible to apply strictly the ordinary rules of evidence, inasmuch as there would be no definite person against whom an accusation was pointed? There is, there-

  1403
  fore, a material distinction between this and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. It is provided in my Amendment that the rules of evidence shall be applied so far as is practicable in the circumstances of the particular examination.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only variation is in the reference to a charge against some person; and practically I think it is the same Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Then I presume I shall be in Order in moving the latter part of the Amendment, which is the same as that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. Waddy), providing that such witness may be examined concerning such offences only, and shall not be examined concerning any other matter or subject whatsoever?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy); but, of course, with his consent, this Amendment may come first.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will assent to anything; but the Amendment I propose to move now is that standing in my name relating to a frivolous summons. It provides that any person frivolously summoned or needlessly detained under this section shall be compensated. Now, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has assured us that the Act in this respect will be used reasonably, and, therefore, my Amendment is but a reasonable one, for if a man is not needlessly detained then my Amendment will not arise. If he is unreasonably detained, which the Government say is not what they desire and expect, then my Amendment comes in. It is only reasonable, I think, and consonant with fair play—even British fair play—that a man should be compensated for time needlessly taken from him.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, at the end of the words last inserted, to add — "Provided also any person previously summoned or needlessly detained under this section may maintain an action for loss of time, unless suitably compensated against the magistrate conducting the inquiry." — (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I have already stated, in refer-
  1404
  ence to another Amendment, that we shall make provision for the reasonable expenses of witnesses for their loss of time. Beyond that I do not think we can go. You cannot leave a magistrate open to actions, which would probably be brought in any case, whether a man were only detained a few minutes or longer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Who is to be the judge of a reasonable amount of compensation? Suppose a magistrate has summoned a number of men, and in the course of examination gets out of temper, having an idea they have information they declare they have not. He may thereupon dismiss them with 6d. for their expenses, when they consider themselves entitled to 6s,, but he bids them go about their business. My proposition is that there should be a reasonable sum given, and that someone should be liable for the payment. If the Government think that their magistrates should be protected, and should not be made the subjects of action, then let the action lie against the Attorney General—he is a good mark—only let someone be liable. But who are to be the judges else of reasonable compensation? Is there to be a Treasury Schedule? Or by what means is it to be settled?
  MR. CHANCE: I do not see how the compensation is provided. If a man is taken from agricultural work in winter time probably a small amount will compensate him; but suppose he is summoned from his work in the middle of harvest time, and only receives 6d. or 1s. in return, much harm will be done to him. I really do not see why Resident Magistrates in Ireland should be elevated into a species of demigods. They have no such position here, and I do not see why ordinary laws should not apply to them. They are men liable to go wrong, and the fact of their being under the control of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary is no guarantee that they will not go wrong; and we object to the Government, in this Bill, setting up these men as a tribunal that will be subject to no law, civil or criminal action, or anything else, We know perfectly well that if an action is taken against one of these men for assault, for an outrage on a woman, or any offence, however serious, there is the power of the Law Officers, and the money of the taxpayers, at their back for defence, and affidavits ready to be sworn to. It is no

  1405
  argument to say that these gentlemen might be put to inconvenience by such actions. Surely a procedure that applies to us all is good enough for Resident Magistrates? I trust the Amendment will be pressed to the very last; and I ask hon. Members to recollect what gigantic powers are to be given to these men: and that they are set up as authorities that cannot possibly go wrong. If that is so, then there is no fear of danger of them from this Amendment, especially as they would have the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I desire to present a couple of reasons why this Amendment should be accepted. The magistrate who will hold these inquiries relies entirely on the police of the district to furnish him with the names of persons to be summoned; and as it invariably happens that the police have a dislike to certain people in the district, they will, from those, furnish the magistrate with names indiscriminately, having no regard to their ability to give material evidence, but simply for purposes of persecution. I have known such cases to occur more than once in connection with similar provisions in the Prevention of Crimes Act of 1882. I know a case in which a young man was marked out by the police for such persecution, and they managed to attach so much suspicion and hardship to his position that eventually he was discharged from his employment, and an amount of injury inflicted upon him for which he could get no compensation. I have known young men summoned to these inquiries who had long forsaken politics, and who hold high social positions among their fellows, so marked out for prosecution by the police that they have been compelled to throw up their employment and leave the country. Now, this Amendment would provide for some such chance of compensation, and, what is more, will be some surety against the indiscriminate and capricious use of the Act by magistrates, and will curb the over-zeal of policemen. These are solid and substanial reasons, drawn from my own experience of such provisions in a Coercion Act, to encourage the Committee to entertain the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and I trust the Committee will give it that consideration it deserves.
  MR. MARUM: Under the Crimes Prevention Act compensation was provided by the Attorney General. Will the latter say upon what scale it was given, and that he will provide the same here? Possibly that might meet our views.
  MR. HOLMES: I am not aware that there was any scale in the Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I propose in this case that there should be a reasonable sum paid for loss of time, having regard to the position in life of the witness.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman toll us how much money was given to any witness, or to any body of witnesses, under the Act of 1882?
  MR. HOLMES: I had nothing to do with the operation of that Act; but I may say that I have seen accounts since I came into Office, and I know that considerable sums were paid to witnesses—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To informers!
  MR. HOLMES: Paid to witnesses, or, at any rate, paid to their solicitors.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says payments were made to solicitors. Now, there are no solicitors for witnesses under this Act, and I am speaking of these witnesses— what is the use of trying to humbug us? [Cries of "Order!"] I do not wish to use an offensive word. I withdraw it. What is the use of trying to deceive us—that, I believe, is a Parliamentary expression—in regard to expenses of these persons by alluding to payments made to solicitors? The sneer, too, of the right hon. and learned Attorney General, suggesting a doubt whether Irish solicitors paid their witnesses, is unworthy of him. Time was he was dependent upon solicitors, and would not then have sneered at them; but now he is to be a Judge, and will be dependent upon them no longer. My experience of solicitors does not lead me to pay any heed to the sneer, though I have heard some complaint against the Crown Solicitor, on the ground of nonpayment of witnesses. But I know no ground why solicitors as a body should be attacked oven by a Judge in posse.
  MR. HOLMES: I trust that, whatever may be said on the other side, I may preserve the courtesies of debate. I answered a specific question. The

  1407
  hon. Member asked me had any money been paid to witnesses under the Act of 1882, and my answer was, that I had nothing to do with the administration of that Act, but that I knew that money wag paid, because three or four accounts happened to come under my notice, and these wore accounts furnished by solicitors, and included expenses of witnesses. A considerable sum was paid to solicitors in this way. This was the only matter raised in my answer to a specific question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That shows how right I was. You have negatived the Amendment which provided that the solicitor should be employed for the protection of the witnesses; therefore, how can you say that any solicitor got money under this section? No provision was ever made under this section of the Act of 1882 for paying witnesses' expenses. The hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says the expenses were paid to the solicitor of the prisoner. Now, he knows very well that he negatived the provision providing that the solicitor should be in attendance; and therefore, Sir, I say that he was wrong when he said that the expenses were paid to this solicitor. Now, I must ask who is to decide what are reasonable expenses for witnesses? Is it to be left to the Resident Magistrate to say? If it is, then he will make it a species of bribery. He will say— "You will not got your expenses unless you answer the question;" and he may also add—"Instead of giving you 5s., I will give you £5 for your expenses," so that the money will be paid in the shape of blood-money unless you provide some check in the form of the liability of the Resident Magistrates, on behalf of the Crown, for the damages being paid to witnesses in case they are frivolously detained. I also think you should declare what sum should be paid to witnesses
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am very sorry, Sir, that this should be moved again. The Amendments to this section remaining to be discussed ought to be got rid of in a very few minutes; and I think hon. Members will admit that it is only
  1408
  reasonable that we should ask that this sub-section should be finally disposed of before the House adjourns. I cannot go back from what I said on this matter. We must dispose of these Amendments before the Government can agree to report Progress. I must say that I recognize, to the fullest extent, the reasonableness of the appeal which has been made to us by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I have not the slightest wish to put any obstacle in the way of the discussion of the measure in which he takes so deep an interest. I will do nothing, so far as I am concerned, to put any obstacle in the way of the consideration of it; but I must remind the House that I am not delaying the Business. I have represented to the House the necessity of making progress with the Business of the House; and I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the amount of progress we have thought it our duty to insist on this evening is either excessive or unreasonable. I say, again, that if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will simply put the Amendments which they desire to take the verdict of the House upon them, having regard to the fact that the Government feel it necessary to ask for the powers which they have asked for under this section, they may surely be satisfied with allowing the Committee to go at once to a Division upon them. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen insist upon debating those Amendments they may delay the measure of the hon. Member for Northampton; but it is my duty, and I am sure I shall be supported by hon. Members, when I ask the House to dispose of these Amendments before progress is reported.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted very fairly that the appeal of my hon. Friend the Junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is a reasonable appeal, and the ground upon which he declines to accede to that proposal is that he insists upon getting to the end of certain sections of the clause now before the Committee. Well, Sir, my light hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) said, about half or three-quarters of an hour ago, that at that time it was not unreasonable. But now I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what has, hap-

  1409
  pened since then gives us any reason to hope that we shall, except at a very late hour in the morning, arrive at the point at which he desires to arrive. I must remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that we have been sitting in this House, since 5 o'clock. I have been here myself most of the time from 5 until 2 this morning, with some short interruptions. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most extraordinary suggestion—that these proposals and Amendments should be put without any debate. Why, if we go on that principle, should not every other Amendment on the Paper be put, and not be debated? If we do that, we are simply abdicating the rights of the House and of hon. Members. I must say I think the appeal is a most reasonable one, considering the long time we have been sitting deliberating these clauses, and I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to it.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have already admitted that the contention of the Government is a very reasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said so, and so, also, did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney—
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I did not say so.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Then I withdraw the statement that the hon. and learned Gentleman did say so; but I think he admitted it generally. What. I wish to point out is this. The argument is that what was reasonable half-an-hour ago is not reasonable now, because there has been protracted discussion since that period. Now, Sir, I very greatly regret that there should be any difference of opinion upon this point. My desire is, as far as possible, to act in accordance with the good feeling and good sense of both sides of the House in the course which I intend to pursue. But, Sir, is Parliament to make progress with the Business of the country, or is it not? If discussion is to be carried on to the length to which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it may be reasonable, then Parliament breaks down her legislative machine.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I did not say what length I thought would be reasonable.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand the right hon. Gentleman thought it reasonable that those Amendments should be discussed at the length at which these Amendments had been debated.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: No; I said that we should discuss the Amendments at reasonable length.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Then I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to interpret what a reasonable length is. We have been discussing this sub-section, which consists of 17 lines, for three nights and a-half.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And it ought to have been discussed three months.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I say again, that I very much regret that I cannot consent now to report Progress. I admit the reasonableness of the request of the junior Member for Northampton; but I would suggest that if he will use his influence with hon. Members sitting around him it may be possible for us soon to report Progress.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: One word of reply to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that we have discussed a very considerable number of Amendments; but I must point out that upon nearly every one of those Amendments the Government have given some sort of concession.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I must say that the return the Government have received for having made these concessions is a very extraordinary one. We have stretched every point we could, in order to conciliate the Opposition, and the only reward we get now is that our concessions are thrown in our teeth, and we are told that if we concede a thing we admit that it was right and proper that the matter should be brought forward.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that it takes a very long time indeed to induce the Government to make these very small concessions that they do. I can tell the House that we are not going to be bullied by the slaves of the Government. [Long and continued interruption.] We perfectly understand what these obstructive tactics mean. If the Bill of my hon. Friend and Colleague

  1411
  (Mr. Bradlaugh) were not on the Paper for to-night, hon. Members opposite would have been perfectly ready to adjourn at 1 o'clock. Why do they, then, not agree to adjourn now? It is because the Bill of my hon. Friend does not happen to be blocked. I say that these perpetual appeals of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to do Business are a farce, and are an insult to this House. I say, the obstructives are there on the other side of the House. We understand Parliamentary tactics. We understand how Gentlemen want to talk out the Bill of my hon. Friend. They have promised their constituents to do two things; they have promised to vote for it, and they have also promised to vote against it, and they do not see how they can reconcile their two pledges, so they want to shirk the matter altogether. They may make up their minds to this—that not one line more, not one additional word of this Bill, shall, if I can help it, be allowed to pass to-night, and I will stay here until to-morrow morning if no one else does, and keep on moving to report Progress.
  MR. CHAPLINthen rose to speak, and for nearly five minutes was unable to obtain a hearing.
  MR. SEAGER HUNTalso rose; but the cries of "Divide, divide!" were so loud that neither could be heard.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) is continually interrupting the speaker. I must warn him that if he continues I shall have to draw attention to his conduct. I call upon Mr. Chaplin.
  MR. CHAPLINagain rose, and again was unable to obtain a hearing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already told the hon. Member for North Fermanagh that I have observed him continually interrupting the speaker. I shall have to bring him under the notice of the House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I have not interrupted. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be good enough to observe order themselves. [Loud Opposition cheers.] I address this to all sections of the House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for making that statement. If hon. Members opposite had not interrupted me, they would have heard what I was about to say. I did not interrupt hon. Members in the slightest degree more than hon. Members opposite interrupted hon. Members on this side of the House. Sir, I draw your attention to the fact, which cannot have escaped your attention, that hon. Members opposite commence these scenes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The conduct of the hon. Member was very conspicuous.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will not detain the Committee for more than a single moment. I was merely about to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) put a question to the Government as to whether it was conceivable that we could conclude this section within a reasonable time in the morning. Now, I would point out that everything that can be said in support of the remaining Amendments has already been said over and over again within the last three-quarters of an hour. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) informed us a few moments ago that no further progress whatever should be made unless the clôture was applied, and that we should amuse ourselves by walking through the Lobbies during the rest of the night. I venture, Sir, to say, with all respect for the hon. Gentleman, that that is a menace and a threat which he has no right to address to the House of Commons; and if that is the way in which the reasonable appeals of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are met, I hope that he will resort to all the Forms of the House to enable him to carry out his proposal. I say I agree that the appeal made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is a reasonable one, and I willingly recognize the moderation of his language. I will exonerate him, at all events, from obstruction; but I wish to point this out— that when he has already twice appealed to my right hon. Friend, he would now do well to appeal to his Friends on his own side of the House who are obstructing the progress of the Bill; for in their hands, and in the hands of his Colleague,

  1413
  rests entirely the question when the necessary stage will be reached.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the Committee that there is every desire on these Benches to extend to him that courtesy which his long services in this House entitle him to; and if the right hon. Gentleman were interrupted at all, I can assure him that the interruption was not directed against him personally. It was a form of retaliation forced on hon. Members on this side of the House by the manner in which his Colleagues treated hon. Members on this side. Now, Mr. Courtney, I hope that we have done with these scenes, and that we may be able to go on discussing these Amendments in that spirit of fair play and good humour which should characterize all our proceedings in this House. I object very strongly to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) deals with this question. I object to this system of debate—to his plan of measuring the value of clauses from the point of view of a carpenter measuring wood by inches. The right hon. Gentleman says that this clause, consisting of only 17 lines, has already occupied three nights and-a-half; but I venture to say that the importance of a clause does not turn upon the exact number of lines in it. Why, one line in a clause of a Bill may be more important than 1,000 Acts of Parliament consisting of 10,000, or oven 1,000,000 lines. The proper way to measure the importance of a clause is not by the number of words or lines which it contains, but by the principles which underlie the words; and I venture to suggest that throe and a-half nights is the very scantiest allowance of time which could have been bestowed upon a clause of this importance. The second proposal laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is that we must get to the end of a certain subsection—that we must go by a sort of rule of thumb in measuring out what Business is to be transacted in a given time. We are not to study the importance of the clause; we are simply to look to the number of lines dealt with. His third proposition is a most extraordinary one, and I must say I never heard a more astounding proposition made to this House. He says that if hon. Mem-
  1414
  bers on these Benches would only put their Amendments without any discussion, then we could soon get to the point he wishes to arrive at. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) says, if we adopt that policy the House will be abdicating its functions; it will be admitting that there are no arguments to be advanced in support of the proposals which we hare made. I say, Sir, that this is a monstrous proposition. It would mean an entire transformation of this Assembly and its deliberative character into a mere Chamber to record whatever decisions may recommend themselves to the Ministerial majority for the time being. I must say the right hon. Gentleman seems grossly to misconceive the whole purpose of this Assembly, and to suggest that we should adopt a course which no Party with any sense of duty, and with any self-respect, could accept. I am sorry the Oaths Bill is delayed, and I am willing to give the First Lord of the Treasury credit for his good intentions; but I cannot help being exceedingly suspicious when I find that the master of a majority, with his Whips, officials, and means of maintaining his authority, should allow discussion to be prolonged, which has had the effect of diminishing the numerical strength of the supporters of the Oaths Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to defeat the Bill or prevent discussion upon it, he could not have adopted a course more adapted to that end. For my part, I think we might now divide on the Motion to report Progress. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has undertaken, I understand, to withdraw two of his Amendments, and only desires a short discussion of the third, but his fair proposal met with no response. If we had been allowed to proceed, we might have cleared the Paper of several Amendments by this time, even though we did not arrive at the end of the subsection.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 176; Noes 249: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 116.) [2.40 A.M.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government might, I think, tell us exactly what the scale and method of

  1415
  compensation would be. How is the money to be paid? Under ordinary circumstances, it would be paid to a solicitor; but here you have neither Crown Solicitor or solicitor for the witness. I object to the payment being from the magistrate direct to the witness, for I think it would open wide possibilities of corruption. If we are to discuss this matter at this late hour, let us do so seriously, with a sense of duty and a desire to make progress. Therefore, I put this reasonable point when I say let us know who is to pay this money, and on what scale is it to be paid. That, I think, is a reasonable demand to make before we go further with the discussion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: An answer has already been given. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 170: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 117.) [2.50 A.M.]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 250: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 118.) [3.0 A.M.]
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 248: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 119.) [3.10 A.M.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Wallace.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: It appears to me desirable that we should take stock of the situation. Not that, I have any desire to review in detail the whole of the proceedings of to-night; but it must be apparent to every habitué of this Assembly, and as there are rather more habitués on this than on the other side of the House, this affords the opportunity of teaching them what is likely to go on. It must be obvious that if the Government do not see the desirability of allowing us to go home very shortly, we shall certainly not get on with any other Business.
  MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 160: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 120.) [3.35 A.M.]
  Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 245: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 121.) [3.50 A.M.]
  The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY and Mr. ESSLKMONT (Aberdeen, E.) rose simultaneously, and The CHAIRMAN called upon the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY.
  MR. CHANCE: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. I beg to say the hon. Member for East Aberdeen first rose.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have given my decision for Mr. Smith.
  MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question "That the words 'the enactments,' in page 1, line 18, stand part of the Clause, be now put."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question put in my hands is that the words down to "enactment," in line 18, be now put. If that Amendment were put, Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62 on the Paper, besides two others in manuscript, would be passed over. As far as I can judge by viewing these Amendments, Amendments 59 and 60 possibly deserve some discussion and a vote. I am unwilling, therefore, to put the Question until some further time has been given and an opportunity afforded, not necessarily of a long character, during which hon. Members who have put on the Paper these Amendments, to which I have signified that I attach little importance, may allow the other Amendments to be discussed and a vote taken upon them. Therefore, for the present, I do not put the Question.
  MR. CHANCE: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Dry up. Sit down.
  MR. CHANCE: My point of Order, Sir, is that I have an Amendment which is not on the Paper. Do I understand that you rule my Amendment out of Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I said besides those on the Paper there are two Amendments in manuscript, one of

  1417
  which is in the name of the hon. Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask, Sir, which is the Amendment of mine to which you attach importance?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member to which I attach importance is No. 60. I will ask the hon. Member if he intends to propose Nos. 57 and 58?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I gather, Sir, that you say Nos. 57 and 58 are not to be moved?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I intimated that I attached myself very little importance to them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In deference to that, Sir, I will not move them.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I have to move, Mr. Courtney, the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy); but I venture to make a slight alteration—namely—
  "Provided always that such witness may be examined concerning such offence only, and shall not be examined concerning any other matter or subject whatsoever."
  Now, Sir, I understand from what has passed in the early part of the evening that the Government admit the substance of the Amendment, but their objection is that it is unnecessary, because they say its object is already provided for, and covered by a part of the clause which has already-been passed. They found that argument on the provision in line 10. I am quite prepared to admit that if their inference from these words is a correct one that the Amendment is not necessary, but my object in moving it is to make it explicit. I want to make it clear that the examination of the magistrate shall be conversant only with the one offence, and that he shall not have power to conduct a fishing examination or inquiry outside the subject-matter of the offence alleged. At this hour of the morning I do not propose to trouble the Committee further; but I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to accept my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page l, line 17, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to add the words "such witness may only be examined concerning such offence, and shall not be examined concerning any other matter or subject whatsoever."—(Sir Charles Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I submit, Sir, that there is no necessity whatever for those words. The power given to the magistrate is distinct that he shall examine as to such offence. If the first part of this Amendment is inserted it will really be a repetition of the words preceding it, and in my opinion it might lead to misconstruction. I do not think that any magistrate could possibly misunderstand his functions under the clause as it stands, and, therefore, I regret that it is not in my power to accept the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I wish by this Amendment to make it clear to magistrates— a body of men not particularly well skilled in these matters, and in whose administration of this Act, as the Committee will see, there is no great amount of confidence felt by the Irish people—I wish, as I say, to give them a clear indication that they shall not be entitled to go beyond matters concerning the offence which is being inquired into. I will put it to the Committee—my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General says that these words are unnecessary. If so, they can do no harm, and I humbly submit that they will do good. Therefore, I urge the Committee to accept them.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am unwilling to prolong the debate, especially after the scenes we have just had; but I take it that, although the Amendment is a plain one, the answer of the hon. and learned Attorney General was utterly irrelevant. So I think it is our duty to press the Government a little further. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) would undoubtedly limit the authority of the magistrate, who might think, if these words were inserted, that he would be deprived of the power of examining the person before him with regard to other persons charged with the offence. I will put it this way. The magistrate has a man brought before him. He asks him if "A" committed the crime. The answer being in the negative, the magistrate puts another question, and this time asks him if "B" committed the crime. The hon.

  1419
  and learned Attorney General says—"Oh, but the magistrate would be precluded from asking whether 'B' committed the crime if these words are put in." How on Heaven can he make that out? The words of the Amendment would not prevent the magistrate from asking questions with regard to the particular offence, or with regard to any particular person who might be involved in it. That is the only objection, so far as I can understand, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has to make to the Amendment. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really mean to say that if these words were inserted a magistrate would not have the right of examining upon matters brought before him with regard to every person, and every circumstance affecting it? I am astonished at the unreasonable attitude taken up, and I am still more astonished at the absurd arguments that a man of his acuteness has put before us.
  DR. CLARK: This is one of the cases in which officers in Scotland have somewhat similar powers; and when we come to the stage of Supply, I shall bring before the House a great number of cases where Procurators Fiscal in Scotland, in making inquiries regarding crimes, have asked political questions with regard to political meetings. In my own county the Procurator Fiscal called together the members of my committee, and asked them questions regarding my meetings, and what took place at them. When we come into Supply I will bring a number of these cases before the House, and I shall move to reduce the salaries of these Procurators Fiscal. I think we should have a limit to the exercise of similar powers in Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The condition imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the House, that the Amendments should be taken without debate, can, to my mind, hardly have been a fair condition in view of the decision which has recently been given from the Chair.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 242: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 122.) [4.15 A. M.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Earlier in the night I deferred moving this Amendment, and had some hope
  1420
  the Government would meet me with a concession. I now move it without another word.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page l, line 17, after the words last inserted, add—" Provided also when any person has been arrested for the crime to which such inquiry relates, no further examinations of witnesses shall take place under this section except in the presence of the accused, who may examine or cross-examine them either by himself or by counsel or solicitor."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): There are good reasons why the inquiry should go on, and, unless there is evidence for the prosecution obtained, no reason why the inquiry should cease, or take place under conditions the Committee had already rejected.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government would stultify themselves, I suppose, if they accepted the Amendment. I will not attempt now to convince anybody—even the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—but will take an opportunity of raising the question in another form. I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move that the Question, "That the words 'the enactments' in page 1, line 18, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any objection to my moving the Amendment, which I think the Government might accept, providing that notice of every inquiry should be published in The Dublin Gazette?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member would not be in Order, after this Motion is made, in raising any discussion at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is the Closure Motion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
  Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY(speaking seated and with head covered): On a point of Order, Sir, seeing that it is the intention, of the Government to dispose of the subsection, will not the carrying of the first word of the following line answer their purpose?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It will be competent for the hon. and learned Member to move Amendments after the word "enactment."
  MR. CONYBEARE(speaking seated and with bead covered): Were there not Amendments handed in to you in manuscript that might be put?
  THE CHAIRMAN: These were referred to in my previous observations.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

OATHS BILL.— [BILL 104.]
(Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir John Simon, Mr. Courtney Kenny, Mr. Bart, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Richard, Mr. Jesse Collings.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
MR. DE LISLE: I beg leave to move that the House do now adjourn. In making this Motion I do not wish to be uncourteous, or intend to be unfair, towards the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who is specially interested in this Bill. Let me say I am equally interested in the matter, and I do not think it is reasonable to enter upon a measure of such importance at such an hour (4.30 A.M.). Its importance has been acknowledged by the Party opposite below the Gangway, for though I was not in the House I remember that, a few years ago, they voted against a Bill not so comprehensive as this Bill—the Parliamentary Oaths Bill—for substituting an Affirmation for the usual Oath at that Table. The Bill is of great importance, and is so felt to be by the great body of my constituents. I beseech the House to defer the consideration of it to a more reasonable time, and let us now retire to our rest.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. De Lisle.)
MR. BRADLAUGH: No one doubts the great interest of the hon. Member who has moved the adjournment of the House in the measure now before us; he has shown that interest by blocking the Bill. The hon. Member says he desires to
1422
be courteous towards me. I have no desire he should be courteous towards me, but I have a desire that he should be fair towards this measure. I quite agree that at this hour it would be an absurdity to discuss a measure, however insignificant. I do not, therefore, intend to oppose the Motion beyond testing—by the votes of hon. Members present, without any long debate on the adjournment —opinion on the Bill; and I will ask those who are voting for the adjournment to remember that they are really voting against the Bill. If a Division could have been taken some few hours earlier there would have been more votes on this side. I trust the hon. Member, with his professions of courtesy, will show it by not blocking the measure in the future; for I feel sure he would not have professed courtesy now if he had already handed in a block to prevent it coming on again. I will not, then, put the Bill down again for to-day, but will leave some time longer for its consideration.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I may remind the House that earlier in the Sitting my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said he had no desire to use his influence to prevent the Bill being brought forward for second reading; and after the statement now made by the hon. Member for Northampton, I hope hon. Members will not think it necessary to go through the form of a Division, for this reason—that before any decision upon its principle be taken it should be fairly discussed. There is one aspect in which I am certainly anxious to see the Bill passed; it would certainly, whatever else it does—it would harmonize judicial procedure in this country in regard to juries, witnesses, and—
MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to Order, Sir. I carefully refrained from going into the merits of this Bill myself, and I ask, is the hon. and learned Solicitor General in Order in going into the provisions of the Bill on a Motion for Adjournment?
MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is the Motion for Adjournment.
SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I was aware of the Motion; but I did not think I was trespassing on the Rules in pointing out reasons for not pressing the

1423
Motion now. I hope the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire will not persist. The hon. Member for Northampton has fairly earned the step for the Bill at this hour of the morning, and I think it might be taken, it being quite understood that the discussion will be taken on the next stage.
DR. CAMERON: May I point out that the hon. Member, if he carried his Motion for Adjournment, would shut out all other Bills on the Orders? If he would confine his Motion to an adjournment of the debate he would not prejudice other Bills.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire will go to a Division, that we may make a protest against the weakness of the Government in not either bringing in a Bill of this sort themselves or else opposing this Bill. If the Government think such a Bill should be brought forward, let them undertake it; if not, let them stand to their guns and oppose the change. Where is the Leader of the House? Where are the Cabinet? They have all fled precipitately in a body. They have left the conduct of the debate to their Solicitor General. Questions of morality are ill-handled by practising barristers. The late Prime Minister used to resign the Leadership whenever a vote on this question was taken, though he always remained in the House. But the First Lord of the Treasury evidently considers that in such a crisis absence of body is better than presence of mind.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Let me point out that if this Motion is carried now there will be a double wrong. I understand that the Question for second reading is put?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes; but it was followed by an amending Motion, that this House do now adjourn.
MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Motion is carried, the Bill becomes a dropped Order, and the hon. Member for Northampton could not move his Bill another night without a Motion to set it up again, which might be opposed by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire.
COMMANDER BETHELL: I must take exception to the statement that Members voting for the adjournment are voting against the Bill. I shall vote for the adjournment, but I should have voted for the Bill.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; but by voting for the adjournment now the hon. and gallant Member votes for the destruction of the Bill, for this is not simply a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, the carrying of which would give him an opportunity of voting for the Bill on another occasion. If this Motion is carried, all chance of voting upon the Bill itself will be lost. In passing allusion to the remark of the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), in which he called on the Government, if they intended to see a Bill of this kind passed, to bring it in themselves, I beg to say that the worst chance for passing a Bill was to entrust it to a Government, the Loader of which is discredited.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The observation of the hon. Gentleman is a little misleading. I understood him to say that if this Motion were carried it would involve the destruction of the Bill.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: For this Session.
MR. JACKSON: I understand that the Bill might be set down to morrow, for the Thursday, at the same stage; therefore it would not mean the destruction of the Bill.
MR. BRADLAUGH: On the question of Order, may I ask what would be the effect if the Motion for the adjournment were carried, you, Sir, having put the Question for the second reading?
MR. SPEAKER: The effect of the Motion being carried would be that the Bill would be dropped from the Order Book. It could be revived on Notice, to-morrow, by an ordinary Motion.
MR. BRADLAUGH: On the question of Order, may I ask whether that Motion could be made the subject of a "block?"
MR. SPEAKER: It would be subject to the same condition as now.
MR. T. M. HEALY: It would be competent to oppose the Motion to set up the Bill?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes; the block might be interposed at any moment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 195: Majority 91—(Div. List, No. 123.) [4.40 A.M.]
Original Question again proposed.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Division which has taken place indicates a good deal of cross voting; but I hope before the Bill is read we shall take a Division on the Main Question, when I, for one, shall certainly vote against the second reading, for I think it would be unworthy of the House of Commons, and unworthy of the Party to which I belong, not to take the opportunity of assorting at least once their desire to keep in public Affirmations an appeal to the Supreme Being, in token of fidelity to our engagements.
COLONEL HUGHES: I was at first under the impression that this Bill related only to Parliamentary Oaths; but I find that it relates to our whole system of law, and witnesses and anyone else may make an Affirmation, omitting the appeal to the Deity on the truth of their statements. This, I think, would be a great misfortune for our country and for the course of justice. It is a very important matter, indeed, too important for the House to pass lightly over, coming to a Division almost without debate, probably even passing the second reading, at the end of a long Sitting devoted to other Business, at 5 in the morning. I hope we have sufficient knowledge of our duty in this Christian country to press the importance of this upon hon. Members of the House. I have listened frequently and with great pain to quotations from Scripture used to point a joke or sarcasm, but I think there are deeper feelings that will make themselves felt, and should have, a definite way of expressing themselves. Certainly, to pass this Bill now without full debate would be a most imprudent thing for the Conservative Party to do. I shall oppose such a course, and would, if it were the best means of doing so, move an adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Byron Reed.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I feel that I should be in the highest degree unwise, on the Motion for Adjournment, to allow myself to be influenced by words which have no relation whatever to the measure before the House. I deeply regret this opposition
1426
to the second reading, and I specially regret it if any act of mine should have given a Party colour to the Division which has just been taken, because I quite feel that a large number of hon. Members on the other side of the House who have voted did so with the intention of supporting what they considered to be a reasonable change in the law apart from any Party conflict. I shall ask the House to divide on the Question of the adjournment of the debate. I quite feel it is in the power of hon. Members opposite to hinder further discussion, but it is due to hon. Members that I should take at least one Division on it.
MR. GEDGE: I really have a good deal to say on this subject, not on religious grounds, but on the practical grounds of obtaining the truth in Courts of Justice, of which I have had considerable experience. I shall be prepared to speak on this subject, even at this hour in the morning, if hon. Members will listen tome; but, seeing that the House has now been sitting over 12 hours, it is scarcely likely we can go into the subject as it deserves. Therefore, I must support the Motion for Adjournment, because I wish to insure a full discussion of this important Bill on its second reading.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. I think it is necessary in order to clear the Government supporters from the suspicion that the protracted debate on an earlier measure was carried on for the purpose of preventing this Bill being read a second time. If the Bill is read a second time, I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will give an undertaking not to press it further until the House has had a fair opportunity of discussing it. I make this appeal to withdraw the Motion in the interests of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, and I would point out that a very large number of hon. Members have stayed behind for this Bill, thus showing the deep interest they feel in it. I hope we shall make some progress with it.
MR. BARTLEY: Although I sit on this side of the House, I strongly support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I do trust hon. Members on this side of the House will not press this

1427
Motion to a Division. I like to be as fair and as square as I can; and it seems to me that this is simply an obstructive Motion. We have just had a Division, there has been an overwhelming majority, and even if I were opposed to the Bill, I should say the vote should be taken as settling the question. When we object to factious opposition, and to fictitious Amendments coming from the other side of the House, we certainly ought not to imitate those tactics. 1, therefore, urge most strongly that this further Motion for Adjournment should not be pressed, and that we should go to a Division on the Main Question.
COLONEL BLUNDELL: The opposition to this Bill is no factious opposition; the question is whether the evidence of witnesses given on oath is more reliable than evidence not given on oath. I think that anyone who has seen witnesses being sworn before giving evidence, and has noticed how some witnesses have attempted to kiss the thumb and. so avoid kissing the Book, will have formed a strong opinion as to whether testimony on oath is necessary to insure eliciting the truth, but no stronger confirmation of the importance of evidence being given on oath than was furnished only the other day by the hon. Member who brought in this Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Motion before the House is the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member is not entitled to go into other matters.
MR. JOHNSTON: I think a fair course now to be taken is for the Motion for the adjournment to be withdrawn. Let us take a Division on the second reading. I am entirely opposed to the Bill, and shall vote against it. I think we should have a fair and square debate upon it.
MR. DE LISLE: I have no wish to prolong the debate; but I wish it to be understood that before the Bill goes to a second reading I shall certainly claim the privilege of an independent Tory Member of this House, and give my reasons for voting against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 191: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 124.) [5.20 A.M.]
Original Question again proposed.
MR. J. G. HUBBARD: It is quite evident that a majority of the House desire the second reading. This professes to be a Bill to amend the law relating to oaths, and it should, therefore, give an increased value to oaths and affirmations either as promissory declarations or as evidence in Courts of Law; but would that be its effect? If we assent to the second reading now, it is with the distinct understanding that the Bill has careful consideration in its future stages. I do not deny that there may be certain cases in which an alteration of the law may tend to promote the interests of justice; but, at the same time, I say, although we may accept it now, it will not be allowed to proceed without prolonged and careful consideration, for its provisions are of a very sweeping character, and we may find it necessary to introduce large and important Amendments in Committee.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I will only say that I quite accept this statement in the spirit in which it is made, and it is in accord with what was said earlier by the Solicitor General— that the fullest discussion should be taken at another stage.
MR. GEDGE: I do not understand how we can assent to the second reading of a Bill without thereby admitting its principle, and I am not prepared to do that. I am sorry to take up time at this late hour, and that I have to do so without that preparation I should have liked to give to the subject. I am not going to argue the question on religious grounds, as that has been done already by others; and I may say at once that, so far as promissory oaths are concerned, I sot very little value by them. I know there is a strong feeling in favour of them in many parts of the House; but, at the same time, I must admit that those who take promissory oaths of allegiance to Her Majesty are no better subjects than those who do not, nor is there any difference in the result in the Army between privates who do and officers who do not take the oath. I doubt very much whether any promissory oath of allegiance ever prevented a man from becoming a traitor to his Sovereign or his country when so inclined. On the other hand, when we come to deal with oaths in a Court of Justice, experience shows

1429
that we cannot attach the same value to evidence whether sworn to or not, and to point the distinction I may refer to the action of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) himself, who, when a short time ago he desired an inquiry to be made into transactions connected with the Corporation of London, was anxious to have witnesses examined upon oath. I do not at all believe that this was done merely in order that those who gave evidence should render themselves liable to the penalty attaching to perjury.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I said it was proposed solely for the purpose of being able to proceed with a prosecution for perjury.
MR. GEDGE: I did not hear that, and should be sorry to impute to the hon. Member that for which I had no warrant. We do not believe that the sanctity given to the truth when a witness takes an oath springs entirely from the fear of punishment for perjury. There is a feeling that when a man calls upon God to witness the truth of his statement, he, if that statement is false, commits a greater sin than if he was merely telling a lie. I do not say that the feeling has very much weight with me, yet, having had experience for years in Courts of Justice, I am bound to acknowledge the difference there is between the affirmative statement and the giving of evidence on oath. Over and over again I have had to notice this difference. In the first instance, a solicitor takes a careful note of a statement for the instruction of counsel, and afterwards you take down the statement in a more precise way in the form in which it is to be presented in Court; and I have continually found with even educated people, religious people, that when reminded that the statement will be made on oath there comes a pause, and the witness, drawing a long breath, says—"Yes; I said that, but if I am to swear to it"— then he begins to think about it, and finally the statement becomes more accurate. I do not say this would be so with enlightened minds of hon. Members in this House; but I say it is the continual experience of those who have to take the evidence of ordinary people. You may say that a man may object to taking an oath against his conscientious scruples; but these are the people who would not think of telling
1430
a lie at which the unscrupulous man would not hesitate, in either case. Has anyone seen a Jew of low class give evidence? I do not for a moment say that Jews are less scrupulous than other people. Has it not been known for a Jew to lift his hat off when taking the oath in order to take it in such a manner that he may flatter himself that any want of truth in his statement will be less important, because the oath is not binding, in his opinion, unless he keeps his hat on in the proper fashion. Again, I recollect an important case in Chancery in which Sir John Karslake was engaged as my counsel; it was necessary to prove that a certain claimant was legitimate. That the father and mother were married there was no doubt, but there was a shrewd suspicion that the father was married before, and that his wife was living at the time of the second marriage. Affidavits were filed on either side, and the attempt was made to establish the inference that there had been a Scotch marriage between the husband and his first wife, and several Scotch witnesses had made affidavits to the effect that the first wife was living at the time of the second marriage. These witnesses had sworn to these affidavits in the English form—that is, they signed their names and kissed a Testament— they were brought up to London to be cross-examined, and took the oath in the Presbyterian fashion, holding up the right hand; each in turn, when cross-examined by Sir John Karslake, swore diametrically opposite to the facts in his affidavit. He swore he was a God fearing man, and when he was confronted with his name to the affidavit, he said— "That is my name; but I did not swear to that as I do now, and it is not equally binding on my conscience." And said Sir John Karslake—"You call yourself a God-fearing man?"—"Yes."— "Then you may leave the box." I might give other illustrations to show the effect upon some minds of going through the ceremony of taking an oath. In Criminal Courts we know that care is taken that a witness shall not kiss his thumb instead of the book. However superstitious this may be, we have to take account of these things and their effect upon our endeavours to elicit the truth. There is a vast difference in the minds of people—notalways among the most igno-

1431
rant classes—between lying and perjuring I themselves, quite apart from the punishment that attaches to the latter. However foolish that may be, however we may look forward to the time when it shall cease to be, I say, at the present time, we cannot leave it open to a witness to exercise his option whether he will swear or not, for if he intends to lie he will not swear, and will salve his conscience with the idea that a lie unsworn to does not matter. Therefore, I must vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. MARK STEWART: From a deep sense of personal duty, and feeling sure that my feeling is one that animates a large number in and outside the House, I must protest against proceeding with such a measure at 6 o'clock in the morning. It is absolutely ridiculous to attempt to do so. To attempt to discuss the bearings of the question now is sheer nonsense. It is due to the country that the matter should be fully discussed, and I, therefore, move the adjournment of the House.
MR. TOMLINSON: I second that Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
MR. BRADLAUGH: I should not do wisely to attempt to prolong a series of Divisions. I admit that the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) was an exceedingly fair one, and the Government have given evidence of their desire to carry it out by voting in each of the Divisions with me. [An hon. MEMBER: No; not all the Government.] Well, some Members of the Government did. I do not wish to imply more. A very largo majority has twice expressed a clear declaration in favour of the principle of the Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] Each Division was specially challenged by myself on that principle. I will merely repeat that, and add nothing more, believing I should best consult the wishes of the House by agreeing to an adjournment, being content with a moral victory.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I would just like to say that what has been done this evening is not intended to indicate the action of the Government on the one
1432
side or the other. It was not a matter on which the Government intended to call upon their supporters to act. Some hours before the Bill came on the matter was discussed, and, having regard to the circumstances of the time, some of us thought it would be better to postpone the real discussion to a later stage.
MR. BRADLAUGH: If the hon. Member will withdraw this Motion, I offer no opposition to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. DE LISLE: It is my intention to offer determined opposition to the Bill, and I shall renew the block which by accident failed last night. I merely ask, is it competent for me to put a block on the Paper before I leave the House renewing my opposition to the Bill?
MR. SPEAKERsignfied assent.
MR. BRADLAUGH: It will be competent, but not courteous.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Debate arising;
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 153.]
(Dr. Cameron, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Lyell, Mr. Provand.)

SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
DR. CAMERON: On the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, all the Scotch Members voted in its favour, with the exception of three who are Members of the Government. That being so, I hope there will be now no opposition to the second reading.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton): At this hour it is not proposed to oppose the Motion for Second Reading; but in assenting to that stage the Government reserve the right to move important Amendments in Committee. The Government are aware that in some parts of the country it will be convenient to have an earlier hour for the closing of public houses,

1433
and in deference to the view of the majority of Scotch Members, expressed on the last occasion, we do not now oppose the second reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock in the morning.