PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.

HC Deb 13 May 1887 vol 314 cc1819-940

Clause 1 (Inquiry by order of Attorney General).

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to leave out the word "not,"—(Mr. Peter McDonald)

Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

When the Committee adjourned on Wednesday, I was speaking of the effect of the Amendment then before the Committee. The general principle with regard to the English Law of Evidence, is that any witness can excuse himself from answering a question which, in his opinion, may tend to criminate himself. That principle is applicable in the trial of any case in this country, whether civil or criminal; it is applicable where there is a Judge sitting upon the bench, and the Court is an open Court, and it is also applicable wherever and whenever a witness may be called upon to give evidence. It is now proposed to alter that Law of Evidence in reference to secret tribunals, and to allow such questions to be put under the considerations contained in this clause, even when the answers may criminate the witness. I was proceeding on Wednesday to point out to the Committee that the protection which this sub-section purports to give to a witness, is simply to prevent any statement the witness may make from being used in evidence against him, but that it is perfectly competent for the Crown or the prosecutor to use it for any other purpose except as a confession or as a statement in evidence. I wished on that occasion to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary results to which the adoption of this principle may lead, supposing that the statement of the witness is not held to be sacred, and provision is not made that, so far as he is concerned, it cannot be used in any way against him.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is anticipating an Amendment which comes later on. The only question now before the Committee is whether the word "not" shall stand part of the clause.

MR. O'DOHERTY

Of course the word "not" will regulate the whole of the sub-section. One of the excuses of the Government for altering the Criminal Law in this respect, is that although a witness may be called upon to criminate himself, in a subsequent part of the section provision is made that no harm shall happen to him. It is provided that any statement made by a witness in answer to a question put to him on examination, except in the case of an indictment, or any other criminal proceeding for perjury, shall not be admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding, civil or criminal. I was pointing out that that is an illusory concession in reference to the compelling of a witness to answer whether the answer may criminate him or not, and I was calling attention to the attempt which was made by the Chief Secretary to defend this provision. What was the point of the right hon. Gentleman? His point was this. We should constantly have cases occurring in which the witnesses would falsely allege that a particular answer would criminate themselves. But surely that is an obvious fact in reference to ever case to which the English Law of Evidence applies, because in any Court of Justice in which a witness may be asked to give evidence he may falsely allege that his answer would tend to criminate himself. Let me call attention to the manner in which such an important change in the law of the country is defended, and the grounds on which the Committee are asked to be satisfied with so enormous a change. No doubt a clause in the Act of 1882 was passed in almost exactly the same words as this sub-section; but the right hon. Gentleman for once sought to be original, and the original argument he used for changing the entire Law of Evidence for this country was this—That there would be this dilemma in regard to the witness— he would either be a true or a false witness. If he were a true witness in saying that an answer to the question would criminate himself, then that fact ought not to be against him, because if he were a true and honest witness, the answer he gave would undoubtedly criminate him. But according to the right hon. Gentleman, he may be a false witness, and, in that case, no reliance can be placed upon any answer he may choose to make, whether it tends to criminate himself or not. If you have a witness under examination who is a false witness, why compel that witness to give answers and make certain admissions which are to be used against other people. I must say that this argument seems to mo to reduce to an absurdity the entire position of the Government in this matter in reference to a previous Amendment accepted by the Government. I want to know from the Attorney General in what way the confession of a man is to come in and to be made use of? How is the case of a confession previously made to be provided for? Take the case of a man coming in and saying to the magistrate—"I am not going to give any evidence about this case, because I committed the crime myself." That may take place without the witness having been called upon to answer any question on oath at all, and how is such a witness to be dealt with? Let me ask the Committee to remember that in this sub-section we are dealing with witnesses, and not with criminals. In this preliminary inquiry, as the clause stands, a man is called upon to tell the truth, even although his answer may criminate himself. Now, the French system is very different. In France there is a preliminary examination for the purpose of eliciting the truth, and not for the purpose of compelling the witness to criminate himself. Sir James Stephen has commented with considerable force upon the French principle: but it is not the French principle which is proposed to be introduced here. In France the inquiry is conducted before a permanent judicial officer, and everything taken down goes before a superior Judge, who is able to see whether that judicial officer exceeded his power or exercised the torture of repeated remands in order to compel the person brought before him to make criminatory statements. In this case there are no means of correcting an examination, or of having it inquired into and considered by a superior Judge. There is no protection of that sort at all, and the magistrate who takes the examination is under no responsibility whatever, because the examination can never be commented upon by the Judge of a superior Court. A second and most important distinction between this ease and the whole French principle, is that in proceeding against a man by interrogation in France, there must already have been some evidence laid before the Court which tended to criminate the person examined. He is already under a cloud of suspicion, whereas the witness in Ireland is presumed to be perfectly innocent. Under these circumstances, I cannot help thinking that the French system is infinitely to be preferred to that which the Government now seek to introduce. In deference to your ruling, Mr. Courtney, I will not, as I had intended, touch upon other matters. I presume that I shall have an opportunity of referring to them hereafter. Taking the clause from beginning to end, I maintain that it is in the highest degree objectionable, and may be converted into a trap to extort from the witness certain admissions as to the time and place and circumstances which may give a clue to the prosecution, and ultimately make the witness a criminal himself. Therefore, I contend that the system proposed to be introduced here is worse than the French system, and totally opposed to and inconsistent with the ancient traditions of law and evidence. What I want to know from the Government is, whether henceforward we are to have observed in Ireland the ancient spirit of the Law of Evidence, or whether we are to have imported into that country something infinitely worse than the French Code?

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

The worst part of this proposal is, in my opinion, the words which declare that the witness examined under this section shall not be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer may criminate, or tend to criminate himself. Why do not the Government say—"lawful question?"—that the witness shall not be excused from answering "any lawful question." As the sub-section runs, the witness is not to be excused from answering "any question." I think there ought to be a definition of the word "question." The Government promised that there should be a definition; but the Amendment which has been put down by the Government simply provides that — Every warrant to commit a witness to prison for refusing to answer a question put to him on an examination held under this section shall set out the question which the witness refused to answer. I am of opinion that the Amendment which appears in the name of the Attorney General does not tend to mitigate the severity of the clause in any way, and the promise of the Government to mitigate the severity of the provision has been proved to be entirely illusory. In my opinion, all that will be gained by inserting this clause will be an increase of perjury. That is recognized by the Government themselves, because they provide that the answer given by a witness to a question shall be admissible in evidence against such witness in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in case of an indictment for perjury. They must know this—that self-preservation is the first law of nature, and that a man if asked directly "Did you do so and so?" may commit perjury rather than criminate himself. I do not think that in England, with all your love of law and order, you would be able to induce a person who is liable to be convicted of burglary or murder to answer a direct question that criminates himself; and yet in this clause you provide that he may be punished for perjury if he answers falsely. The meaning of this is, that a man who is undoubtedly guilty of the first offence, having been found guilty, may possibly be hanged, and then, after being hanged, he may be prosecuted for perjury. That is one of the clear absurdities of this proposal. If a man's evidence will criminate him, he must be a criminalab initio, and you may give him seven years' penal servitude, or hang him; and, having carried out that sentence, you may prosecute him for perjury. Can anything be more absurd? How can you prove that a man has committed perjury unless you show that he ought to have criminated himself? Having done that, you punish him for the original offence, and heap Pelion on Ossa. It is certainly one of the most extraordinary proposals which have been suggested, even by an Irish Attorney General.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

This proposal of the Government really goes far beyond anything that has ever been suggested in connection with the Law of Evidence in any other part of the world. Under the French Code a Juge d' Instruction may examine a person generally as to crime; but he has no right to compel the witness to answer. He can cross-examine him if he likes, but he must take the answer he gets, or accept the fact that the witness declines to answer. In no case can a man who has been examined be punished for perjury in consequence of any answer he may have given to the Juge d' Instruction. Such an inquiry is regarded as being of a strictly private nature, and it entails no penal consequences.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I am surprised that the Government should persist with this section. It certainly contains the most revolutionary proposal which has ever been introduced into our jurisprudence. The other night I challenged the Government to produce from the law of any country any such power as they are asking for now—namely, to make a man criminate himself in the evidence he may be required to give before a magistrate. What was the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the appeal made to him to amend this clause? The right hon. Gentleman read a portion of a sentence from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, which provides that a person called as a witness respecting an election before an Election Court shall not be excused from answering any question relating to the election on the ground that the question may tend to criminate himself. Strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman stopped there. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House, and I imagine that he acted from pure ignorance. He ought, however, to have continued his reading, when he would have found that the next part of the clause entirely destroyed the effect of his answer, because it is provided in that Act that a witness who answers a question properly shall be entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity, so that, in whatever respect he may have criminated himself, he is altogether relieved from any painful consequences. That is the only precedent that can be found in the English law; and, so far from supporting the view of the right hon. Gentleman, it entirely destroys his case. The effect of that provision is to make it to the interest of the witness to toll the truth; whereas, under the present Bill of the Government, it is manifestly the interest of the witness to tell a lie. It has been stated that a clause of a similar character was seriously considered in 1882, when the Crimes Act of that year was before the House. Now, I find, on looking at Hansard, that that clause was never considered at all. Curiously enough, there was no Amendment to that portion of the clause, and it seems to have slipped into the Bill entirely without consideration. That omission makes it even more necessary that on this occasion the Committee should direct its attention to a provision which is utterly inconsistent with every principle of our criminal jurisprudence, and calculated to destroy every principle of morality, because it is not likely that you will be able to induce a witness who is a criminal to criminate himself. Let mo call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the essential difference which exists between the Corrupt Practices Act and this Bill. In the case of the Corrupt Practices Act a man is asked to criminate himself only in respect of election offences, and if he tells the truth in regard to what he knows, he is entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity, and cannot be punished. Therefore, under the Corrupt Practices Act, a witness escapes the usual penalties which attach to bribery and other corrupt practices. Unfortunately, in regard to the offences dealt with by the Corrupt Practices Act, public opinion is not so stringent as the law. We all object to bribery in the abstract; but in the concrete hon. Gentlemen condemn it only when it is practised by the opposite Party. As far as corrupt practices go, that Act provides that if a person, when under examination, tells the truth he shall receive no punishment of any kind; but under this Bill, when a Resident Magistrate is making an inquiry into a serious crime, such as murder, that consideration does not apply, and the precedent afforded by the Corrupt Practices Act does not hold good in cases of this kind. If a witness, under the stress of examination, discloses to the magistrate the fact that he has committed a criminal offence, although there may be no means of proving it beyond the man's own confession, it is provided here that that confession shall not be admissible against him. But still, there is no statutory limitation in regard to criminal offences, and the witness may afterwards become liable to be prosecuted when other evidence is forthcoming. In giving evidence before this secret tribunal the witness will necessarily place himself in the hands of his enemies, and I do not think his enemies will feel themselves bound to keep his evidence secret. On the contrary, it may be a matter of common knowledge to Dublin Castle, to the parish priest, and to the magistrate, and may even become a subject of common gossip. Therefore, if the precedent of the Corrupt Practices Act were entirely satisfactory, it would afford no adequate reason for this particular piece of legislation. There is only one other point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I will refer. He stated that it was necessary to compel a witness to criminate himself, because otherwise he might falsely allege a claim of privilege, and refuse to answer on the false ground that his answer might criminate him. Did it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that that objection, if it is a good one, is clearly applicable in every case where a witness is called upon to give evidence in a Court of Justice? In a Court of Justice a witness may falsely raise the same plea; but I doubt whether he would do it successfully. I wonder what it was that put that idea into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I remember an inquiry which was held not long ago before a Coroner in Ireland into a case of stabbing by the police; and although on the first day of the inquest the police answered truthfully the questions put to them, on the second day, from some mysterious cause which was not disclosed, the police constables appeared to be animated by a desire to protect themselves, and they refused to answer the questions put to them on the ground that they might criminate themselves. The experience of the policemen who gave that answer was not very encouraging, because what happened to them was this—the Coroner made out a warrant for their committal for contempt in not answering the questions. It is perfectly easy for a Court to judge, in a large majority of cases, whether the answer to a question may or may not criminate a witness; and if a plea of privilege were falsely raised, a competent Court and a competent magistrate would disregard such false plea, and commit the witness who refused to answer it to prison. Therefore, I trust that, even at the last moment, the Government will strike this "clause out of their Bill, or, at all events, accept the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper, and which will come on later.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will accept an Amendment which appears in my name, and which is numbered in the Paper of Amendments as No. 124? It provides that— No person who is examined under this section shall be charged with the commission of the offence in respect of which he has been examined. That would remove the necessity for arguing this sub-section further. Will the Government say whether they are prepared to accept that Amendment or not?

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

The Government will have no objection to accept, with some very slight modification, Amendment No. 83a, which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). They cannot accept the Amendment referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Elgin (Mr. Anderson). The Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen provides that— A witness who answers truly all questions which he is required to answer shall he en-titled to a certificate of indemnity under the hand of the magistrate making such examination, stating that such witness has so answered, and such a certificate of indemnity shall ha a bar to all criminal proceedings, and proceedings for the recovery of any penalty in respect of any offence as to which such person has been examined in such inquiry.

MR. ANDERSON

That is some concession which, I think, we ought to be thankful for; but I should be glad if the Government were prepared to go much further, and I hope the Attorney General for Ireland may be persuaded to do so.

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

Certainly not.

MR. ANDERSON

I think it highly probable that the Government, on re- consideration, may see their way to accept my Amendment, which would get rid of all further discussion of the Amendment now before the Committee. What I wish to call the attention of the Committee to is this. In the course of these discussions we have heard a good deal about the law of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), however, has not said a word on the matter; and, therefore, I ask him now to tell the Committee if the proposal here made to compel the witness to answer a question which might criminate himself is is accordance with the law of Scotland? The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate makes no sign; but I find in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own book that it is not permitted by law to compel a witness, under any circumstances, to answer questions of this character. If that be so, and you cannot compel a witness to answer such questions either by the French law, the English law, or the Scotch law, I think there ought to be the very strongest grounds shown for the proposal to make it the law of Ireland before the Committee agree to accept this clause. I think we are entitled to ask from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, or from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), an explanation of what the Scotch law on the subject really is.

Question, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment— 81—which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge), relates to a point which has already been decided.

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

I wish to move an Amendment which comes in after the word "any"—namely, the word "lawful," which will make the sub-section read— A witness examined under this section shall pot he excused from answering any lawful question on the ground that the answer thereto may criminate, or tend to criminate, himself. Surely the Government have no desire to have unlawful questions asked.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, after the word "any" to insert the word "lawful."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'lawful' be there inserted."

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the insertion of that word is not necessary. It adds nothing at all to the clause except another word.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Allow me to point out that I have taken the word from the Bankruptcy Act. We have it asserted by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England that the word is unnecessary; and, therefore, I inform him at once that I quote it directly from the Bankruptcy Act, which provides that a witness is not to be committed unless he has refused to answer a "lawful" question. Surely it is not proposed that unlawful questions shall be asked? The Government either want proper questions to be asked, or they do not; and if they desire proper questions to be asked the introduction of the word "lawful" cannot possibly do any harm. I hope the Government will not put us to the trouble of a Division, because I shall certainly press the Amendment, believing it to be a matter of principle. As to the insertion of the word "lawful" in the Bankruptcy Act, I presume they will accept my statement of the fact.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I am afraid that the Government do not see the importance of this point. They have already laid upon the Table a Parliamentary Paper which shows the constitution and character of the gentlemen who will be entrusted with the administration of the law. It may be quite true that a Judge or a barrister with legal training would be aware that the word "question" implied "lawful question;" but we have no such guarantee in the case of the military and naval gentlemen who "will have to administer this law in Ireland, and whose knowledge of the law, as we all know, is of the most superficial character. Is there any reason why this Amendment should not be adopted? It would certainly afford some guarantee that a proper check was imposed upon the gentlemen who would have to administer the Act. They would read the word and regard it to some extent as a safeguard, inasmuch as it attaches some limit to their discretion. If that word or some similar word is not contained in the provision, they will arrive at the conclusion that there is to be no limit to the questions asked, and that they may ask lawful or unlawful questions just as it suits them. The Government will also bear in mind that the word "lawful" is contained in the Irish Bankruptcy Act, and that no objection, up to the present moment, has been raised to its existence there. I trust that, as the Amendment involves very grave questions, the Government will give us some further reply than the brief rejoinder of the hon. and learned Attorney General for England.

MR.CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think it is perfectly understood that the Resident Magistrates will place their own interpretation upon the words of an Act of Parliament, and that it is, therefore, absolutely necessary to define clearly what the nature of their power is. If such clear definition is not given, I am afraid it will be necessary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to send down a code of instructions to the Resident Magistrates who will have to administer the Act. My view is that the necessary instructions with regard to an administration of an Act of Parliament, especially when it will have to be administered by such men as the Irish Resident Magistrates, had better be embodied in the Act itself rather than left to any instructions which the Attorney General for the time being may send down. There is great reason to fear that, unless some Amendment of this kind is inserted, the Resident Magistrates will arrive at the conclusion that they may put what questions they choose, and that they will act in a grossly illegal manner.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

I think we are entitled to some answer from those who are responsible for the framing of the clause, and who may be presumed to intend that it shall be properly shaped. All we want to show is that the questions put to a witness examined under this section of the Bill must be lawful questions. Hon. Members will bear in mind that this is a secret and not a public examination, and that it would be most undesirable to allow the magistrate to extort answers to any questions he may choose to put. I quite admit that the word "question" in an ordinary Court of Law would be construed to mean "lawful question," and in open Court a witness is protected by an attorney or counsel, who would take care that no unlawful question was put. In most eases which now come before the Courts we see counsel constantly jumping up for the purpose of protecting a witness against an unfair question; and, therefore, I greatly regret the absence in this clause of any protection whatever against unfair questions being put. Looking at the sinister surroundings of the whole thing, and the way in which witnesses are to be dragged, into a secret chamber before the presence of persons they may have never seen before, without anyone to watch over their interests, I think they ought to be afforded some real protection in the construction of the Act itself, so that they may refuse to answer questions which are totally irrelevant and illegal, and which would only be put for the purpose of entrapping them into statements which may be used against them in a criminal trial for perjury. I think we are entitled to some concession from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and it is absolutely necessary to insert some such word as this for the purpose of protecting witnesses from being entrapped or bullied, as they have been in former inquiries.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I hope the Government will save the Committee the trouble of a Division, which will certainly waste a quarter of an hour. The words are simply "lawful question," and I will again ask the Government whether they want unlawful questions to be put? What we ask them is simply that a witness shall not be compelled to answer any but lawful questions.

MR. O' DOHERTY

I do not see that any harm can be done by the insertion of this word. The Resident Magistrate is to examine on oath concerning the offence, and he is only to examine a person who, in his opinion, can give material evidence. Therefore, it is simply implied in the section itself that the questions must be lawful questions, and I do not see what objection there can be to making use of the word "lawful."

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The hon. and learned Attorney General for England objected to the Amendment on the ground that it would mar the section by introducing a superfluous word. Now, that is a view we cannot take. Our position is this—that although the word may, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, have no legal effect, it would have a very great moral effect upon the minds of the Resident Magistrates. If these gentlemen knew their business, no such word would be necessary; but, unfortunately, they do not know their business, and they need proper direction in order to restrain them within the strict lines of legality.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 241: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 138.)

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

I have now to move, in line 27, after the word "himself," to insert the words— Every statement made under this section shall be cancelled before the person making it is called as a witness in support of any criminal charge.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 must be taken together, and 82 can only be moved in conjunction with 83.

MR. ANDERSON

Then, in obedience to your ruling, I will move the omission of the rest of the sub-section.— But 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, he admissible in evidence against him in any proceeding, civil or criminal, for the purpose of inserting the words I have already read.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Upon the point of Order, may I ask whether the adoption of this Amendment would exclude the moving of any other Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

I will put the Question in such a form as to safeguard everything.

MR. ANDERSON

The Amendment I propose is in page 1, line 26, after the word "himself," to leave out to the end of Sub-section 3, and to insert words to provide that every statement made by a witness shall be cancelled before the person making it is called as a witness in support of any other criminal charge. It has already been conceded, I think, that the copies of the examination of witnesses shall be at the disposal of the accused, and I shall be glad to hear from the Government any further explanation of the course which they propose to take.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, leave out all the words after the word "himself" to end of the subsection, in order to insert the words "every statement made under this section shall be cancelled before the person making it is called as a witness in support of any criminal charge."— (Mr. Anderson.)

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

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

I am unable to accept the Amendment. We have already inserted a Proviso in the 1st sub-section— That any person 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 of any witness to be called against him. We have, therefore, accepted a proposition that copies of the depositions shall be supplied to an accused person. In point of fact, it has been stated again and again in the discussions which have taken place that the object of being supplied with copies of the depositions was that there should be some material for the cross-examination of a witness. The Amendment now before the Committee suggests that every statement made by the witness shall be cancelled before the person making it is called as a witness in support of any criminal charge. Speaking as a lawyer, I do not know what the word "cancelled" means. It is certainly not a term which has ever been applied to the examination of a witness. I am told that it has some signification in the Scotch law, and it is obvious that the hon. and learned Member is much better acquainted with the Scotch law than that of England. I take it that the meaning of "cancelled" is that, by some process or other, the instrument is destroyed and becomes useless for any legal purposes. It is wholly impossible that the Government can consent to a proposition of that kind, because the document may be required for use in some other way, and at any moment the original may be called for. If the original is destroyed, under such a provision as this, it would be quite impossible for a copy to be of any value. What is the object of holding this inquiry at all? It is for the purpose of getting information, and, if so, why is the information, when obtained, to be destroyed as soon as you have got it? If the information given in evidence is to be cancelled, I do not see any necessity for the trouble we propose to take. The Government certainly cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. ANDERSON

I am very sorry that the Government are indisposed to accept the Amendment. I thought the advisability of inserting it was so apparent that it was not necessary for me to take up any time in order to explain it. I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would feel that the words are not inconsistent with the words of the Amendment which was introduced the other day. The object of the Amendment the other day was to give the prisoner's counsel full information as to the statements made at the preliminary inquiry, by providing them with copies of the depositions containing the statements which had been made against the prisoner, thus affording the counsel for the prisoner the same information as that in the possession of the Crown. No doubt, this is directed to a totally different object. A statement cancelled cannot be used by the Crown Prosecutor against the witness, and that is the simple object of the Amendment. With regard to the term "cancelling," the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it has no signification or meaning. If there is anything novel or peculiar in it I hope that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will tell us. It is a very well understood term. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland professes not to understand the meaning of the word in connection with legal documents. What I mean by "cancelling" is that the statement of the witness cannot be used in evidence upon the trial of a criminal. That is the interpretation given to the term and printed in large letters in the book of the Lord Advocate, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us whether that is correct or not?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I think it is as well to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) relates to the same subject, and that the Government have intimated their intention of accepting it, wit has light modification. The hon. Member for Aberdeen proposes to omit the same words, and if the Government accept the words the hon. Member proposes to substitute, subsequent Amendments will become Amendments to those words. Probably the best course would be to put the Question at once, so far as it relates to the omission of the last part of the sub-section. The only question which can then arise is what words shall be substituted. Therefore, I will at once put the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, and the Committee will then come to the question of the words to be substituted.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, leave out the words "but 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."—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, That the words 'every statement made under this section shall be cancelled before the person making it is called as a witness in support of any criminal charge,' be there inserted.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

It has already been decided that any person who may be subsequently charged with, any offence shall get copies of the information and of the depositions, but it has not yet been decided to what extent the Crown or the prisoner shall have the right of using the statements which may have been made. The Attorney General puts a dilemma in this form. He says that the depositions taken at this secret inquiry are to be used for some purpose, or they are not to be used; if they are not to be used, why should the Government object to cancel them? There can be no doubt that the Government, by holding on to these secret inquiries, hope to obtain certain information in reference to the commission of crime, which they hope will ultimately put them on the track of the perpetrators of such crime and enable them to bring the criminals to justice. All that we ask is that the prisoner and his counsel shall be put upon a footing of perfect equality with the Crown counsel at any trial which may take place, and that if the Government have any special knowledge gained in these secret inquiries the prisoner's counsel shall be placed in possession of that knowledge. That is a very different thing from saying that either party shall have the right to use the knowledge so obtained. The Amendment before the Committee appears to me to raise two different issues. In the first place, it apparently raises this issue, whether or not the person examined in one of these secret inquiries is to be liable afterwards to a prosecution for perjury for any statement he may have made. That is the first question raised. I apprehend that if the statement made by the witness is cancelled it should not be used for any purpose whatever. That is a very important issue. The second is, to what extent the depositions taken at these secret inquiries may be used against the person being tried. That being so, may I be permitted to point out that in moving this Amendment the lion, and learned Gentleman is simply moving words to give expression to the conclusion to which the Government originally came? In a previous part of this stage of the Bill, in connection with an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), the Government wore understood to pledge themselves that the depositions taken in these secret inquiries should not be used for any purpose whatever. There can be no doubt that the Government originally came to that conclusion. They state now that they have modified that conclusion in consequence of an Amendment which they were subsequently in- duced to accept, compelling the Crown to hand over copies of the depositions of the examinations at these secret inquiries to the prisoner's counsel in the event of a trial. What I would press upon the Government is that there is really no inconsistency whatever in the two things. It is perfectly consistent to compel an inquiry and, at the same time, to cancel all the information given at it. The information may have been exceedingly useful to the Government in enabling them to get upon the track of the offender, and in bringing them to justice, although it may not be available in prosecuting the offender. But if the information can be made available to the Government in that way in the prosecution of the offenders, and in enabling them to get at the facts, is it to be pretended that it may not be equally useful to the prisoner's counsel? If a witness, who happens to be under examination in a criminal case, has knowledge of the fact that the counsel examining him has in his hand an attested copy of the depositions previously made by him, that fact would, no doubt, afford a powerful check in securing that the witness told the truth. It may be that the prisoner's counsel would not be in a position to use the original statement even should the witness perjure himself, but the mere knowledge that the statement is in the hands of the prisoner's counsel showing that on a previous occasion the witness had testified to a different state of facts would be, of itself, sufficient to induce the witness to consider carefully what he was saying, and to take care that in what he said he did not contradict himself. For my own part, if I had to choose between the cancellation of the depositions and the decision the Government have come to that copies of the depositions should be supplied, I would certainly vote for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend to provide that the statements contained in the depositions should be absolutely cancelled, and that they should not be able to be referred to by anyone.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

There has been an absolute change of front on the part of the Government in reference to this Amendment. We had an expression of opinion from the Government a short time ago, that the evidence taken at the secret inquiry should not be used subsequently against the prisoners. But now what they say is that the acceptance of the Amendment adopted at an earlier period has altogether changed the character of the clause. I am at a loss to see that there is any value whatever in the contention of the right lion, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to the legal meaning of the word "cancellation." It is a mere evasion of the importance of the Amendment, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seriously address himself to the question before the Committee. If the original document cannot be used, how can any copy be used? What we want is that neither the original deposition nor any copy shall be used, but that all shall be cancelled. The real object of the Amendment, in fact, is to prevent any statement which a witness may be compelled to make in the secret inquiry from being used afterwards in evidence. Now, I contend that the evidence which will be taken before this secret inquiry will be illegal evidence—generally hearsay evidence—but it will be beyond the ordinary discipline of the the Courts of Law, and will not be evidence that would be admitted in an open Court. We should, therefore, I think, be careful to exclude in open Court evidence which has been taken in a secret inquiry. The evidence which will be taken in these secret tribunals is evidence which will not be in accordance with the law, but which is altogether illegal. We are now asked to make such illegal evidence legal by Act of Parliament. The Government, in beginning the discussion of this clause, had the firmness to admit that it would be improper to receive any such evidence; but now, in consequence of the acceptance of an Amendment, they maintain that they have a right to make a change of front on this question. I would seriously ask them if they are of opinion that illegal evidence taken before a secret tribunal should be subsequently used in open Court to the prejudice of a prisoner? I maintain that that would be altogether improper, and that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member ought to be accepted.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I would suggest to the Attorney General for Ireland that my hon. and learned Friend might be induced to withdraw his Amendment if the Go- vernment would make a concession which, I think, would make both sides agree. I concur with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is a somewhat strong proposal that the original deposition should be destroyed, and copies of it preserved. There is a certain amount of logical contradiction in that proposal; and I think the Attorney General for Ireland is right in saying that there is a certain amount of inconsistency in the proposal. An Amendment has been accepted by the Government which provides that copies of the depositions shall be given to the prisoner and his counsel. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend below me; and I think he pointed out the distinction on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to proceed—namely, that, although we have decided that the prisoner's counsel shall get a copy of the depositions, the question is still open whether he or anybody else is to have the right to make use of them. The do-positions given to a prisoner's counsel may serve either of two purposes—they may put the prisoner's counsel on an equality with regard to information with the prosecuting counsel, or they may serve another purpose in being used at the trial to test, on cross-examination, the credibility of a witness. Now, I am strongly prejudiced against the use of depositions obtained in this way for the latter of those two purposes. I think the Government would be well advised if they would follow the precedent of the Scotch law, and not use anything that takes place at a secret inquiry except for the purpose of obtaining information. I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he should undertake to introduce words that will limit the use of the depositions to purposes of information, and preclude their use for any other purpose. If he will do that, I shall be strongly inclined to urge my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

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

The demand made to the Government was that the prisoner should have the opportunity of getting the benefit of the evidence received at the preliminary inquiry, and there appeared to me to be a strong and powerful argument in favour of it. It was not merely suggested by hon. Members below the Gangway, but by hon. Members above the Gangway; and it certainly appeared to me to be a strong argument. It is said that if the depositions remain in possession of the Crown they may be used for some improper purpose; but we do not propose that they shall be used as evidence. They are to be used for the purpose of examination and cross-examination alone, and not as evidence.

MR. T. M. HEALY

They have been used as evidence, and you know it very well.

MR. HOLMES

I know nothing of the kind. The hon. and learned Member repeatedly makes use of observations of that character—observations which are not couched in the most courteous form. I know nothing of the kind.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Was it not so in the Kerry case?

MR. HOLMES

Not to my knowledge. And all I say now in regard to the Amendment is that, having accepted an Amendment on Tuesday, after full discussion, and in the belief that strong arguments had been employed in favour of the Amendment, it would be most unwise to alter on Friday what was done on Tuesday. If we were to do so, it is manifest that it will be impossible ever to come to the end of the Bill. So far as the observations of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) are concerned, we must use these statements for one purpose, at all events, and that is for a prosecution for perjury. I can be no party to the insertion in this Bill of a provision that the penalties for perjury committed by a witness on oath shall not be put in force.

MR. T. M. HEALY

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put into the Bill that these depositions shall not be made the subject of evidence, but only be used for the purpose of crediting or discrediting evidence, and for protecting a prisoner, I shall be very glad. But what happened at the Cork Assizes? A Kerry prisoner named Welsh was tried at the Winter Assizes. A witness swore to particular facts, and Judge O'Brien called for the depositions of the witness, after having taken a night to consider the point. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland—Lord Ashbourne —has maintained that the Judge had a perfect right to do what he did. In that case it was a civil action, in which the Attorney General for Ireland represented United Ireland, although we now hear a great deal about the iniquitous character of United Ireland. A deposition having been made in London as to something done there, it was held that the witness might be cross-examined upon it. What I fear is that the memory of a witness may be jogged by a reference to the depositions, and that the matter may never find its way to a Court of Appeal, so that, practically, any Judge will have the decision of the matter in his own hands, and in the case of a subservient Judge, as most of the Judges are who are sent down to try these cases, he would refuse to grant a case for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. Therefore, I maintain that it would be unfair to give the Crown the right to use those depositions, unless for the purpose of discrediting a witness. To put them in, with liberty to make them substantial evidence, is a thing we can never consent to. Will the Government consent to the insertion of a Proviso that the depositions are to be used only for the purpose of contradicting a witness?

MR. HOLMES

I have never suggested that the depositions can be used except for the purpose of testing the credibility of a witness.

MR. ANDERSON

I will give way to the Attorney General for Ireland on this point, in the hope that I may obtain some further concession on the point hereafter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, after "himself" leave out to end of sub-section, and insert—"Provided that —(a) A witness who answers truly all questions which he is required to answer shall be entitled to a certificate of indemnity under the hand of the magistrate making such examination, stating that such witness has so answered, and such a certificate of indemnity shall be a bar to all criminal proceedings, and proceedings for the recovery of any penalty in respect of any offence as to which such person has been examined in such inquiry; and (b) An answer by a person to a question put at such examination shall not, except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury in respect of any statements made by him on such examination, be, in any proceeding civil or criminal, admissible in evidence against him."—(Mr. Hunter.)

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

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

The Government have considered this matter most carefully after the long debate which took place upon it on Wednesday, and we are willing to insert this Proviso in order that it may be made clear on the face of the Bill. We propose, however, to omit the words "in respect of any statements made by him on such examination," in order to insert the words "committed at or after the holding of such inquiry." That would, we think, amply protect the witness in regard to statements which have no relevance to the inquiry. The proceedings must, of course, be limited to perjury committed at or after the inquiry. With this modification, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

May I suggest an Amendment after the word "answer," so as to make the Proviso read— Any witness required to answer in respect to any offence as to which such person has been examined in such inquiry?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

That is the same question the hon. and learned Member has already raised. The magistrate must inquire concerning the offence, and to insert other words might give rise to difficulty.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

If a witness, when under examination, says — "I committed a certain murder," is he to go scot free? There may be case's where a man is an approver, and has been granted a free pardon; but are you entitled to have sprung upon you, at any time, a declaration that the witness has committed a murder, and that he is to be freed from all the consequences of the crime?

MR. T. M. HEALY

In a previous part of the clause we have the words, "other than any person confessing himself or herself to be the offender."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) seems to forget that we discussed the question a few nights ago, as to a confession being used against a witness.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I wish to understand exactly what the position is. Does the hon. and learned Gentle- man say that if a magistrate holds an inquiry He is to examine a witness with regard to some offence other than the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry, and that if the witness does not answer truly in regard to such offence this clause is to come into operation? Is that the position which the hon. and learned Gentleman takes up?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I have already answered that question. I presume that the magistrate would do his duty and confine the questions to matters relative to the inquiry. Our Bill must be passed on the assumption that the magistrate does his duty.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I think the words ought to be so framed as to cover the case of a confession, and I would propose to insert words in the clause to that effect. I will move the insertion of the words "confession or," before the words "an answer by." The effect of the insertion of these words will be to provide that a person who has confessed to the commission of any offence will be entitled to an indemnity.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "and," insert "confession or."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

This Amendment relates to section (b) of the Amendment. Will it not be better to put the whole of (a) first, and allow (b) to remain separate?

THE CHAIRMAN

Unless the two are put together it will be impossible for the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) to move his Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I would propose to omit the words, "except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury."

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Do I understand that the hon. Member for Cork does not propose to move his Amendment?

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I intend to move the insertion of the words "to a question put," on the ground that if they are allowed to stand a witness would not be protected who volunteers a statement, because that would not be in answer to a question put. The words in the Amendment are, "an answer by a person to a question put at such examination." I understand that you have already put a Question to insert the words, "confession or in answer to," and that we have not got further yet than section (a). When section (a) has been adopted, I intend to move, instead of the words "a question put," to substitute the words "a statement made."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "a question put," in order to insert "a statement made."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The Government are able to accept that Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

We have already disposed of the point which relates to the putting of a question by the Resident Magistrate. My Amendment is directed to the fact that a witness may volunteer statements which are not directly made in answer to any questions put to him. The Committee have not yet decided that point. There is nothing to prevent a magistrate from putting questions at the beginning of an inquiry which may draw from the witness, in the form of a narrative, all He knows of a particular offence. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to say that a witness who, in answer to one question, gives the whole narrative, is to be liable for anything that may be extorted from him in that way, in regard to which, if it had been put as a question, he would have been protected?

MR. M. J. KENNY

I think it is only right to substitute the words, "a statement made by him on examination," instead of "in answer to a question put." That would cover both answers to questions put and statements made by any person in the course of an examination.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I propose to move in sub-section (b) to omit the words which provide that the deposition of any witness may be used in a prose- cution for perjury against him. You cannot prove perjury against a man unless you convict him of an offence, and it is repugnant to British ideas of justice to punish a man more than once for the same offence. Having punished him once, are you to proceed against him for perjury? You cannot convict him of perjury unless you prove the first offence, because the offence which entitles you to proceed against him for perjury must be the offence for which he has been convicted in the first instance. You cannot prove perjury against a witness unless you put in a record of his conviction, and I do not see how you are to do that.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment to omit the words, "except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. HOLMES

The Government cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The words are inserted for a very obvious reason—namely, that a witness who gives false testimony in these inquiries shall be treated in all respects like any other person who is guilty of perjury. The hon. and learned Member says that we render the witness liable for two offences; but what is said here is that a man who gives truthful evidence is entitled to an indemnity, but that, if he commits perjury, he shall be prosecuted as any other witness would be. If it can be proved that a witness swears he was not present on a particular occasion, and it can be proved that he was there, why should he not be prosecuted for perjury? I certainly do not understand the force of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I certainly object to the retention of the words "except in the case of any criminal proceeding for perjury." In an ordinary prosecution for perjury, it would be necessary to prove that the answers given by the witness were relevant to a particular offence. But in such a case you have a prisoner in custody charged with the commission of a crime, and it is in reference to that crime that you test the falsehood of the statement. But in this inquiry there may be no prisoner and no specific crime alleged; and, to my mind, there will be no standard by which you can test the relevancy of the answer. How can you possibly draw up an indictment for perjury committed in the course of such an inquiry? Therefore, to my mind, these words are altogether unnecessary and unreasonable.

MR. T. M. HEALY

To impute perjury whore there is no issue before anybody is simply absurd, and nobody knows that bettor than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In fact, a man might commit perjury from start to finish, and yet it would be impossible to prove perjury, because there must be a distinct issue in order to justify a charge of perjury. Here there is no issue at all. I maintain that such a provision would be a paralyzing provision, because it might render any witness who answered a simple question liable to two years' imprisonment for perjury.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The whole point we have been fighting for from the beginning is the fear that the statements made before these secret tribunals may be used for some other purpose. The Government say they do not propose to use the depositions in a Court of Law. Then why not accept an Amendment to that effect? Here, however, they provide that the depositions of a witness may be used on all other occasions; and yet this is the very thing the Attorney General says He does not desire to do. In this Proviso he sets up these very depositions as substantive evidence.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

As a point of Order, I wish to know if the Attorney General for Ireland proposes to move the Amendment 88a after "perjury" insert "committed at or after the holding of such inquiry?"

THE CHAIEMAN

Those words have already been incorporated.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Government have stated that in no case are the depositions to be used as substantive evidence; but, by putting in these words "against him," the depositions are set up, and may be used in a Court of Law. If the words "against him" are taken out, the depositions could only be used for the purpose of examination and cress-examination. Is it intended, as was done by Justice O'Brien in the case of the man Welsh, to put them in as substantive evidence?

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "against him."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. HOLMES

I take it that it has been clearly decided that the statements made by a witness are only to be used for the purpose of testing his credibility. What we say is that these depositions may be used for the purpose of cross-examining a witness. Possibly they might be used in an action against a magistrate for out stepping his jurisdiction, but they cannot be given in evidence at all in any proceeding under the Habeas Corpus Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) does not seem to consider the fact that the depositions cannot be used against the man who makes the statements, except in a perfectly legitimate way. There is nothing that can make them substantive evidence, except in a trial to test the credibility of the witness.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman 10 minutes ago that the Government pledged themselves not to use the depositions as substantive evidence in a Court of Law. The statement he has just made is directly contrary to that undertaking, because He tells us that it may be necessary to use them in a criminal inquiry, altogether independent of the private inquiry in which the statements were made. If a prisoner is charged with perjury the Court will be told by counsel that under this section the depositions may be used as substantive evidence. The whole of the depositions from first to last may be used, and there will be no end to the irregularities which may be committed. The Government are now turning the whole practice of the Law Courts topsy-turvy.

MR. CHANCE

I am sorry that some of the English lawyers are not in their places, because I believe that the law of England is that the depositions of a witness cannot be used subsequently as substantive evidence. They can only be used when a witness is in the witness-box for the purpose of cross-examination in order to bring him to his bearings. They may, also, be used for the purpose of cross-examination by the prisoner's counsel. In Ireland, however, doubt has been thrown upon this rule of law by the extraordinary decision of Judge O'Brien in violation of that principle at the Cork Assizes. Judge O'Brien held, in that case, that depositions taken in a preliminary inquiry were admissible in evidence if the witness prevaricated, and wont back on his original statement. In that particular case, I believe, the witness was a woman who said she could not identify the prisoner, and this extraordinary thing happened—Judge O'Brien turned round upon her in a very unusual fashion and charged her with perjury. He then called for the depositions which were read in Court, and he committed the witness for perjury. We know that in England that could not have been done, and what we desire by this Amendment is to make the law of Ireland the same upon this point as the law of England. In the case of this clause as it stands, the depositions could be used as substantive evidence in prosecuting a witness for perjury, notwithstanding that the Attorney General for Ireland has said that it is not so, and that it has never been so intended. Having now reached the part of the clause which relates to that matter, the Attorney General for Ireland says we must retain these words, in order to give a power which he told us before was never intended to be exercised. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not insist on retaining in this clause what amounts to a direct violation of the statement he made in this House, and which is reported in Hansard.

MR. E. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

The case which has been referred to, in which use was made by a Judge of depositions taken in a private inquiry, was undoubtedly a gross violation of the law. I can hardly conceive anything more absurd. I should like to know if it is really the case that this circumstance occurred, and I will ask the Attorney General for Ireland to be good enough to say whether it is the case or not that depositions obtained in this way were made use of before a jury? The second question I should like to put is this—assuming that that did occur, has there been any decision of the Superior Court declaring that what Judge O'Brien did was a violation of the law? because I understand that the Court of Appeal in Ireland has no criminal jurisdiction. It would be a most dangerous thing to leave a precedent of this kind unreserved, although it is only a precedent set by one Judge. There may be a danger of other Judges following the precedent in the future. I am satisfied that the Attorney General for Ireland cannot desire that such a precedent shall be followed; and, therefore, I hope he will take some effective steps to procure its reversal.

MR. HOLMES

There has been no report of the case as far as I know. I have no knowledge of the matter, except such as I have derived from the statements of hon. Members opposite. I believe there was a case which came before the same learned Judge, Mr. Justice O'Brien, in which the depositions were produced for the purpose of cross-examination. In the course of the examination a certain statement was made by the witness which directly contradicted a previous statement he had made. Mr. Justice O'Brien ruled that that was evidence which should go to the jury of the fact therein stated; but when the case was brought before the Court of Appeal the Court had no hesitation in declaring that the evidence had been improperly received for this purpose. That was a civil action, I believe; and although the hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that a Court of Appeal would not deal with criminal cases, I think it is well understood that the rules of evidence in both cases are the same. There is only this difference—that these rules are much, more stringently enforced against the Crown than against the prisoner.

MR. CHANCE

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) was concerned in Cornwall's case. He acted as counsel for me, and I acted as solicitor. However illegally the Judge may have acted, the result, so far as the prisoner Welsh was concerned, was that he was detained in prison for a considerable period. When, however, the Crown official was concerned the decision was appealed against, and was reversed. In the other case, the man was kept in prison for two years, and no point was reserved.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The Attorney General for Ireland seems to be ignorant of the fact that it was Judge O'Brien who tried both cases, and in trying the case of Cornwall I believe the learned Judge gave a certificate that he had given a previous decision to the same effect. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit mo to point out another fact? We have it now declared pretty plainly that in these secret inquiries the Resident Magistrates will be bound by no rules of evidence. We have this further declaration from the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that not only will it be legal, but proper for a Resident Magistrate to examine and cross-examine persona giving evidence before him as to matters of hearsay. What will be the effect of that? A witness will be examined on all sorts of matters, not only within his own knowledge, but things he may have heard. Is it the duty of the magistrate, in taking the deposition of a witness, to put down all the statements made, whether the statements themselves relate to matters of fact within the witness's own knowledge or to mere hearsay? What is to happen afterwards if statements on matters of hearsay are to be made substantive evidence? Are the Government to be entitled subsequently to use such depositions in a criminal trial, and to put another person on trial upon such evidence? When once the depositions are put in every word of them, from the first to the last, will be evidence, no matter how illegal the statements may be. The effect of what the Government are now doing may be that, in certain cases, a jury trying a prisoner may be influenced in a most serious manner by statements made on hearsay which are contained in the depositions. In that respect it appears to me that the most important and lamentable results may follow from the position the Government propose to take in this matter. In the jurisprudence of all other countries hearsay evidence has always been excluded from the consideration of juries, not only in criminal but in civil cases. The evidence is always confined to what the witness knows, and not to what he has hoard. Among the many innovations which this Bill makes, we are to have this—that we are to introduce into the jurisprudence of Ireland statements made by a witness, not upon his own personal knowledge, but what he may have heard at tenth-hand, which may seriously prejudice a prisoner.

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

We are agreed as to what the law in England is, and we are also agreed as to what the law in Ireland ought to be; but we are confronted with this difficulty—that it is alleged that there has been a decision which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General fur Ireland admits is in practical contradiction both to English and Irish law. It ought to be made perfectly clear that the statements made by a witness at the preliminary inquiry are not to be used again in any trial, civil or criminal, except, first, in case of indictment against him for perjury; and, secondly, in case the man who has been examined should bring an action against the magistrate. We are all agreed upon that. What is asked to be guarded against is the possibility of the witness's statement being used against anybody else in an indictment under Clause 2. I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland for an assurance that he will, before the Report, see if he cannot introduce some words which, without infringing on the two points I have referred to, would place it beyond doubt that this mischief cannot take place.

MR. HOLMES

I would certainly not have the smallest objection to consider the matter. I certainly have some personal doubts on the matter as to whether it is possible; but if the right hon. Gentleman would put upon Paper the form of words which he thinks would meet this point we will consider them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Hunter) amended, and agreed to.

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

I trust the Government will agree to the Amendment I am about to move. We know very well that in these cases the witnesses for the defence have been examined, and it is to prevent that in future that my Amendment is proposed. I must say that it is a most reprehensible thing that the names of the witnesses for the defence should be got for the purpose of giving them their expenses, and that, having got them, counsel for the Crown should go to the magis- trate and get the statement taken of every witness within the precincts of the Court. This has been clone, and the Crown Counsel have had as part of their brief the brief of the counsel for the defence. I do not think that any such thing would be tolerated in any other country, certainly not in France. If the Government do not intend that the infamous practice of taking the case of the prisoner and putting it in the Crown brief shall continue, let them give the guarantee asked for in this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, after "criminal" insert—"Provided that if any person has been charged with the commission of the crime which is the subject of the inquiry, no witness shall be compelled to answer who shall state that he believes he is to be called to give evidence for the defence of such accused person."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. HOLMES

The Government cannot accept this Amendment, inasmuch as it would defeat the object of the inquiry which is to take place, because there is no person accused of the crime. Without a person is accused, it is wholly impossible to know the witnesses for the defence. Our object in introducing this clause and asking for this power is to obtain the evidence of men who are unwilling to come forward. If the only thing a man had to do to avoid examination were to state that he believed he would be called as a witness for the de fence when a person is charged, he might leave the Court without being asked a single question. It is clear, then, that the effect of this Amendment would be to make the whole section nugatory, and for that reason the Government cannot agree to the insertion of the words.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I ask the hon, and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) if he will defend the practice of calling the witnesses for the defence, and examining them when a person is in custody, and is returned for trial? Will that practice be defended by any honest man in this House? Would the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster), in a recent case, have liked his witnesses to be taken in hand by Mr. Poland and plied with leading questions, and is he sure that if that had been done Mrs. Bartlett would have got off? I ask if any lawyer would consent to his witnesses for the defence being examined and their statements put into the Crown brief? The system is a loathsome one, and I say that it is one of those things which make the Government who proposes it hated by the people of Ireland. We are told that they want the laws of the three countries to be the same. Will anyone tell me that this is the law of any place in the world besides Ireland? Why, a Choctaw Indian, who burns his victim at the stake, would not entertain the idea. This plan was the invention of George Bolton. Will the hon. and learned Solicitor General get up and defend this practice, and will he, with his intellect and on his conscience, support the Government in their refusal to accept this Amendment? My Amendment may not be drafted with the skill of the famous draftsman in the Irish Office— I will not say of the draftsman of this Bill, for whoever drafted that is sufficiently discredited already—but, if you find fault with the words, bring in words of your own to insure that a witness for the defence shall not be examined at this inquiry when the prisoner is in the dock.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

It is natural that the Solicitor General, who has gained his name and position by the defence of prisoners, should be silent on this point, and I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not the hardihood to stand up and defend the system in this House which my hon. and learned Friend has described. I wish to point out that this Amendment is altogether restricted to cases in which the perpetrator of the crime is supposed to have been caught. Do the Government intend to say that they propose to treat prisoners as persons on their trial before they are committed? Let me point out what will be the effect of this. Some person is brought up and charged with a crime; it very often happens that a person who is entirely innocent will be inclined, when before the magistrate, to enter on his defence; but he cannot do that now because, by entering on his defence and calling witnesses, he will supply the Crown with the names of his witnesses, and those witnesses will be called up under this clause and compelled by threats or bribes to criminate the prisoner, or else be sent to gaol. Now, the result will be, first, that the prisoner will be compelled by this, how- ever innocent he may be, to reserve his defence; and, secondly, that he will be put in gaol as an untried prisoner for six, eight, or ten months, as the case may be, whereas in England the man would not be imprisoned for six minutes after his case had been heard by the magistrates. I say it is an abominable thing thus to compel a man to reserve his defence, and go to gaol as an untried prisoner, whore He will get only two hours' exercise out of the 24, and be allowed to see only a limited number of visitors. The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment will compel persons to do this rather than in a straightforward and manly way to come forward and meet the charge.

MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

I have not much to say on this point, although I have a strong opinion on the subject. I do not think the Government, or any humane person experienced in the law, will say that when a person has been committed for the crime, the witnesses for the defence should be sent for and examined with reference to the subject-matter of the case. The spirit of this Amendment is to prevent any person being taken and treated in the manner I have described. I hope the Government will be able now, or at some future time, to prevent that which I think is a scandal, and which would be a gross thing if it were allowed to occur again in Ireland.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

I do not think there is any difference of opinion with regard to this matter of the examination of witnesses for the defence, as stated by the hon. and learned. Gentleman who has just sat down. Although, of course, I do not want to prolong the debate by always answering personal appeals made from the other side of the House, I have no hesitation whatever in saying, with regard to the allegation made as to the examination under this clause of witnesses who had been called for the defence in Ireland, that it would be most unjustifiable if such a thing were to occur under a process of this kind. I do not know anything of what is alleged to have taken place; but, with regard to this Amendment, I point out that the words are too large, because they would be in conflict with the decision already arrived at by the Committee. As to the witnesses who have been called for the defence, there would be, as I have said, no justification for afterwards holding an inquiry beyond that at which they may have been examined; but, of course, it would be impossible to exempt from the operation of this section anybody who said he was going to be called for the defence, because to include these words would be to exclude from the section what it has already been decided to include. The effect would be that a guilty man might at once shut out from examination persons who might be very important witnesses indeed. Although there is practically an agreement on the principle of the Amendment, it will, for these reasons, be necessary to suggest more limited words to give effect to it.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I think the Amendment might be made to run thus— No witness shall be compelled to answer who has given evidence or has received a subpŒna to give evidence for the defence of such accused person. I should like to point out to the Government that there would be no harm in taking the wider words "subpœnaed to give evidence." Although the person may be debarred from examination on oath, there would be nothing to hinder his being examined privately by the Crown officials. In Scotland it is not usual to employ the oath in inquiries at all; it is usual to ask the witness what he has to say on the subject of inquiry; the Procurator Fiscal can go to any person whether subpœnaed or not, and ask him what he knows about the case. I suggest as an Amendment to the Amendment the words I have indicated.

An hon. MEMBER

I think it would be wise to consider whether the first line of the Amendment might not run thus— "Provided that if any person has been returned for trial," and that then the words of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen should follow.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

I think, perhaps, it would be better to substitute for the words "who shall state that he believes he is to be called," the words "who has been called to give evidence."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

If the witness is subpœnaed it would be perfectly competent for the prosecuting counsel to insist on the man being produced and put in the witness-box. When once a witness is subpœnaed he is in the hands of the Crown to cross-examine. What we want to prevent is the getting of a deposition from a witness under threats or bribes, as I have explained.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND

It has been ruled according to Irish Law that the prisoner is allowed to call any witness. It would follow from the Amendment that the witnesses for the prosecution might be called and exempted from the operation of the section.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland is aware that the Resident Magistrates refuse to hear any witnesses for the defence on these inquiries. Captain Plunket did that over and over again. He said that all a magistrate had to do at a police court was to satisfy himself that a primâ facie case had been made out. I do not agree that that is the law, but there can be no doubt that it will be done frequently. But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say that it would be departing from the practice to compel the witnesses for the defence to be examined on this inquiry. I think no lawyer of experience in criminal cases would approve that. The concluding passage in the report of almost every examination of prisoners is that the prisoner "reserves his defence," and of course that is done for good reasons. I do not see why there should be any departure from what has always been the practice in Ireland—namely, when anything like a case is made out to allow the prisoner to reserve his defence. Allow me to point out what will probably happen if the clause is passed in its present form. I would not suggest that there is anything improper in the Crown having before a magistrate and examining any witness who can give evidence about the offence; but it may be in many cases that the evidence of the witness is given in relation to the prisoner only, and not in relation to the commission of the offence, and in that case, I think, both sides of the House will agree that the examination of those witnesses under the circumstances would be eminently unfair. It very often happens that the only defence a prisoner has is an alibi; and would it not be a monstrous thing, if the prisoner alleged that he was at another place when the offence was committed, that the Crown should summon all the witnesses who could prove that? For instance, a man may be charged with Moonlighting; his defence is that he was in bed at the time. Would it not be a monstrous thing that the Crown should examine his father and mother, or the other members of the family, to got evidence so as to be in a position to confront him with any small discrepancy which might be found out in their evidence?

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think the offer of the hon. and learned Solicitor General is a most reasonable one, and I am willing that the Amendment should be amended in accordance with his suggestion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the proposed Amendment, the words "he believes he is to be," in order to insert "he has been."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'he has been' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

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

It has always been held that solicitors and barristers are privileged in respect of not being compelled to answer on matters within their knowledge professionally, and I presume the Government do not want to depart from that principle. But where you have the great body of the priesthood engaged in the agrarian movement in Ireland, I think you will be laying up for yourselves a large store of trouble if you do not also exempt clergymen from the operation of the clause. If this Bill is put forward harshly against Catholic priests in Ireland, the effect will be that the farmers will gather in the sacristy after mass on Sundays and pay their rents to the priests; and the war will be carried on in that way. The Government have already two priests in prison; and they have lately caught another who is in a position to go to prison. This question with regard to the priests has caused great trouble here and abroad, and it will have a most disastrous effect if you seek to get the priests in Ireland to break the seals of the Confessional; but to send priests to prison for refusing to do it will, in my judgment, lead to the worst kind of war in Ireland—not civil war, but it would lead to all kinds of reprisals if priests are sent to prison in this way. I maintain that the Government do not want the priests to reveal the secrets of the Confessional; but you have in Ireland some magistrates who are Orangemen, and who are full of religious bigotry against the priesthood. Supposing Mr. Holt Waring were holding a meeting—he would be delighted to get an opportunity of committing a Catholic priest to gaol, and having done it he would thereby produce a state of things in Ireland which would lead to the worst possible complication. In India, where these religious difficulties arise, you are most delicate in the treatment of those concerned. It was only the other day that you allowed a person connected with a particular caste, who was sent to prison, to be accompanied by another person to cook his food, although the second man had not done anything at all. That is the case in India, whore there is not a high-spirited people; but a population of 150,000,000 who have not much pluck, or they would not allow themselves to be governed as they are. In Ireland that is not the case. I am discussing this in an abstract spirit, and I say, if you send Catholic priests to gaol for refusing to break the seals of the Confessional, that government in Ireland will not be a very convenient or handy thing to carry on. I hope, therefore, in the interest of law and order, that the Government will accept the Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— No banister, solicitor, or clergyman shall be compelled to answer any question on any matter respecting which such person shall state he has acquired the information sought from him in the course of his professional duties."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

The view of the Government is that the passage of this Bill through the House does not offer a proper opportunity for an alteration in the law with regard to privilege. We are not of opinion that any Proviso is necessary; but to make it clear that every privilege which now exists will apply as under the ordinary law, we are prepared to move a Proviso to the effect that no witness examined under this section shall be required to answer any question which he may lawfully refuse to answer on the ground of privilege if he were being examined as a witness at the trial of a person accused of an offence alleged to have been committed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That would not touch the priests.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The intention is to leave the Law of Privilege exactly where we find it, and that the witness examined under this section shall have all the same immunities as under the present law, "save as aforesaid," of course.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The present Primate of Armagh was sent to gaol for a long period for refusing to disclose the secrets of the Confessional.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

When was that?

MR. T. M. HEALY

Twenty years ago; but the law has not been altered since.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We do not propose to alter the law; and the invariable custom in Ireland is to respect the secrets of the Confessional. The hon. and learned Member wants us to alter the law by putting into this clause what is already the custom. The effect of that would not be in the direction which He intends. The priests are already sufficiently protected by custom; and if the law were altered as the hon. Member proposes, in every case which is not covered by statute the custom would break down, and the protection be less efficient than before. I hope the hon. and learned Member will see that the Government have done all they can reasonably be asked to do, and that we are doing our best to carry out his intention.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

I have not intervened in the legal questions which have been discussed in Committee on this Bill; but I think the present is one in which a layman may be allowed to express an opinion. We are now about to introduce into Irish Criminal Law a system of procedure which is absolutely unknown in England, which exists certainly in an obsolete form in Scotland, and which is only known to have been applied in Ireland in extraor- dinary eases. We are now going to deal permanently with a very grave form of law; and although there is nothing in the English, Irish, or Scotch practice to which we can have reference in deciding this delicate question, there is the practice of France, which has been established many years, of inquiry by the Juge d' Instruction, which is different from the process of taking evidence in Court. They are extremely careful in this matter in France, and it is laid down that there shall be exempted from examination all those who have acquired knowledge in the exercise of their profession with regard to the question proposed to be put to them. The classes exempted are surgeons, doctors, priests, barristers, solicitors, and notaries. Instead of having immunity in Court to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has referred, I think it would be much better to have the practice which experience has very carefully built up in France. I do not venture to say more, but I would press upon the Committee to consider the French practice a good precedent in the present instance.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman wishes us to assimilate our system of jurisprudence to the French system in this particular; but I understand the privilege of which he speaks extends not only to the preliminary inquiry, but over the whole French system; and, if so, I think the same privilege which extends to the statements of professional men before the Juge d' Instruction also extends to them in open Court. We do not think that this is the occasion for altering the law, nor do we think that the sanctity of the Confessional would be guarded, but rather the reverse, by the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

MR. CHILDERS

What I propose is to use, with regard to the professional persons of the classes named when examined on these inquiries, the same system as that which has been established in France in similar cases. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that the evidence taken by the Juge d' Instruction is under the same rule as that taken in open Court, because the evidence in the former case is not taken on oath, and it cannot form the subject of a charge of perjury.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

I wish to point out that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) go a great deal beyond the ease put by the right hon. Gentleman; he proposes that "no clergyman" shall be compelled to answer with regard to information obtained in the course of his professional duties. A crime may have been committed in the presence of a clergyman, when engaged in the course of his professional duties in baptizing, visiting the sick, or celebrating the Mass, and yet this clause would protect him from giving any evidence on the subject. With regard to the point taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers), I suggest that you can scarcely quote the one mild feature in the system in France of examining a prisoner before the Juge d' Instruction in the hope of making him commit himself as a reason why you should adopt that one mild part which happens to be the only mild one in that harsh system.

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

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says that this is not the proper place to make this alteration in the law. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where is the proper place? This is surely the place, because you are now giving to a non-judicial body of men powers which are not exercised in any Court of Justice, It seems to me that as you are adding something absolutely new to the law of the country, it is time to put in all necessary safeguards. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more recent instance than that of the Primate of Armagh who was sent to prison some 20 years ago. A question was put by a counsel to a priest, which he said He could not answer; but he gave as the reason why he could not answer that the information was one of the secrets of the Confessional. The Judge intimated to the counsel that it was not the custom to press these questions; but the counsel insisted on his right to put the question, and the Judge said— I am sorry I have not the power to compel the question not to be put; but I am bound by law as it stands at the present time, and I am compelled to punish the witness for not answering the question. The priest was then imprisoned in his room for a quarter of an hour or so. That happened at one of the Courts at Westminster, where the Judge took a more judicial view of the question than would be taken by Resident Magistrates, who are for the most part half-pay officers. My hon. Friend said there are some magistrates who would press these questions. I am certain that there is a large number of thorn who would not do so; but I am satisfied that others would press these questions and take every possible advantage of the priests. Is it right to put this power in the hands of men of this character—men who are not trained to judicial functions? There is no one in this country or in this House who would not despise the priest who gave information under the circumstances. We want to avoid these conflicts in Court, and I say if a priest is put in prison for refusing to reveal the secrets of the Confessional, you will have such an agitation in Ireland as you have not known up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says it is sufficient that the Government should declare their view of the matter, than a priest should not answer these questions; but if that is their view, what possible objection can they have to putting it in the Bill? Will it create any difficulty, or will it in any way interfere with the powers of the Bill? Certainly not. Well, then, if the Amendment is in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland, can you find a better time to lay down in law what you say distinctly is your own opinion and also the custom? I think, under the circumstances, the least that the Government can do is to agree to the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

With regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this is not the occasion for altering the law, I am of opinion that the introduction of this provision would not be an alteration of the law. It would be applying the Scotch Law to the clause. An hon. Member had asked what is the state of the Law in England. It is that a barrister or solicitor has the right to decline to answer questions with regard to matters conveyed to them in con- fidence by their clients. It is more strictly speaking the privilege of the client, and is so recognized by the law. But there is no similar protection with regard to communications which are made by an ordinary person to another professional or otherwise, and there is no such exemption in the case of clergymen, So far from that being so, I well recollect a case tried before Mr. Justice Hill some years ago at York. A clergyman was asked if he had not been the medium for making restitution of stolen property and from whom he had received it; he was called as a witness for the prosecution; he refused to answer, and the Judge committed him to prison, and he was kept there for a considerable time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this would not he allowed to take place in these days in our Courts. I am certain it would not; but I have not the same opinion with regard to Courts of the Resident Magistrates, who might press similar inquiries, and who might feel themselves justified in doing so, and in visiting the refusal to answer them with punishment. I do not see any reason, if on account of general policy it is right to extend the privilege of exemption to barristers and solicitors, why clergymen should not be placed in the same position, which is all that the Amendment asks for.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly, by his suggestion, carry out the object in view. He admits that the ordinary Courts of Law in England and Ireland will not now abuse the existing laws in this matter; but he suggests that there are some Resident Magistrates who will do so. I am sorry to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman never loses an opportunity of speaking ill of the Resident Magistrates.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

I have never attacked the Magistrates. I said I was not certain that there might not be such Resident Magistrates.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then I will not press the point. I point out that at the present time Resident Magistrates have the power of examining priests; but if you put into this Statute that there are special privileges guarding the secrecy of the Confessional, will not the Resident Magistrates immediately make the natural inference that when they are not examining under this Statute, but under the existing law, they may press the inquiries which it is the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent being pressed; and will not the result be that instead of putting up a barrier the Amendment will pull down one which already exists, and which might be perfectly effectual in guarding against the danger that is feared. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the matter from this point of view, and give us, at all events, the opportunity of maintaining the practice which he admits to be general.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I wish to invite the attention of the Government to the superior quality of the Scotch Law on this particular point. There is no doubt that under the English Law, clergymen are not privileged, but the Scotch Law has always taken a very reasonable view of the matter. Mr. Alison says— Our law latterly disowns any attempt to make a clergyman of any religious persuasion whatever divulge any confession made to him in the course of religious visits, or for the sake of spiritual consolation…. I suggest that the Government should take this opportunity of putting the law right where it is wrong, with regard to Ireland and England. It was the Canon Law that a clergyman should not divulge any confession made to him; but as bigotry is stronger than common sense, I suspect that there is an element of the former underlying the absence of this protection for clergymen in the ordinary law.

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

The object of the Amendment is to provide for the Resident Magistrates a finger post to direct them. There is a distinct difference between the Courts of Law and the Courts of Inquiry. The Court of Inquiry is working in the dark, but in the Courts of Law everything goes on in daylight. A man may be summoned into the room of the Resident Magistrate, questioned, and sent to prison if he refuses to answer. The priest has no protection whatever. I remind the Committee of the words of the oath of the Orange Order—"You swear to extirpate Popery." [Cries of "No, no!"] That is part of the oath of the Orange Order. [An hon. MEMBER: Never.] I venture to say that that oath was sworn by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he joined the Order three years ago.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I hope I may be allowed to give the statement of the hon. Member for North Longford my emphatic contradiction.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman opposite. I believe his sincerity is so great that if he had lived 300 years ago he would have been burned at the stake, or would have burned somebody else. Now, this is a matter which ought to be treated by the Government on a serious basis. The Resident Magistrates in Ireland are dismissible at pleasure; they are not like the Judges, who can defend themselves; their salaries, and their increase of salary, depend on the will of the Executive. If you have a Tory Government in power, of course, when they have priests to deal with whom they think unruly subjects, the magistrates will endeavour to find some pretext for putting them in prison. Lord Palmerston, when he was hunting priests in Ireland, wrote a letter, in which there is this passage— I wish you could catch a priest amongst them, like a ptarmigan in a bag of grouse. If that was written by Lord Palmerston in his calm moments in the secrecy of his closet, what may we expect from the administration of magistrates who are Orangemen, who, as Sir George Trevelyan tells us, will, under ordinary circumstances, tyrannize over and oppress the people. Seventy per cent of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland at the present moment are either promoted policemen or half-pay officers. The Primate of Ireland was sent to gaol, and remained there a long time, for refusing to answer a question touching the secrets of the Confessional. The Government say that occurred 20 years ago. Yes; but the law remains unaltered; and if a Judge in the Superior Courts in Ireland acted in that way with regard to a Prelate who is certainly as saintly a man as ever existed in the country, what would be the case with regard to red-hot Orangemen who are magistrates? Why do you break the seals of the Confessional? What has the unworthy profession to which I belong done that it should be singled out for special recognition? What are barristers that they should be protected? What is that most mundane profession to that spiritual profession which appeals to men's consciences and hearts, and which, by your Bill, is to be left to the tender mercy of Resident Magistrates? This is the very case in which the Government can shut our mouths by the clôture; because, certainly as long as we have the right to protest we shall protest against priests being sent for to answer inquiries before Orange Magistrates, and being committed to prison for refusing to reveal things of which they can only derive any information through the discharge of their sacred duties.

MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid)

Perhaps, as a Catholic, I may be allowed to state my opinion that the Catholic priests of this country do not wish any exceptional legislation to be made on their behalf, especially on a matter which is so essentially a part of their sacred duty as confession. I speak with some trepidation upon this subject, because I see before me the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and it is not many years ago since he used all the arts of his rhetoric, and published some pamphlets to make out the case that the Catholic religion was dangerous to the State. Now, there has been raging in Germany, for several years past, a conflict called the Cultur-kampf. I was in Germany when that question was before the people, and the contention of Prince Bismarck was that the Catholic religion was necessarily such as to constitute a serious danger to the State. The Duke of Wellington held this opinion also, and he laid down that the Catholic religion was a most dangerous religion in the speech which he made against Catholic Emancipation in the House of Lords.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must invite the hon. Gentleman to confine himself more closely to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. DE LISLE

I did not wish to wander from the point in dispute, but I wanted to show that owing to the prejudices which exist against us as a religious body, I do not believe it would be for the interest of religion if any exceptional legislation were passed, especially with regard to this question of confession, and for the reason that I believe our clergy, as a whole, rather than raise the prejudice which would be created in the minds of men, would prefer that the law should remain as it is at present; and that they would, if they were compelled to suffer, think it better to go to prison, because it is part of their faith that those who suffer here for justice sake will receive their reward elsewhere. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford refers to clergymen without distinction.

MR. T. M. HEALY

It is because I did not wish to give offence to Protestant feeling in the House that I have not put other words on the Paper.

MR. DE LISLE

It seems to me that if the hon. and learned Member uses the words in his speech he might just as well put them on the Paper. I say that the clause, as it stands, will cover all that the clergymen of our Church wish to enjoy, which is the same amount of privilege and no more than is enjoyed by barristers, solicitors, and doctors; and I, for one, shall vote against any such exemption as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

Unfortunately, the discursive nature of the hon. Gentleman's speech has led him into an illustration of his argument which you, Sir, with the full assent of the Committee, at once checked. In deference to that judgment, I will not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman. I will only observe that there was not a word which the hon. Gentleman said on the subject of my pamphlet that was accurate. This shows either that the hon. Gentleman has never read it—which is perfectly excusable—or that he has forgotten it, which is entirely natural and proper, or that he thought fit to refer to it on the chance of not being contradicted, which I cannot say is either natural or proper.

MR. DE LISLE

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that I have forgotten his pamphlets, because I had the pleasure of looking through them last night. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I have a personal interest in the matter, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman spoke very kindly of my father's reply to the attack which was made upon his Church.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

—[The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!]—I am not going to break your ruling, Sir, because I intend to confine myself strictly to contradictions. As the hon. Member refers to one whom I revere in common with himself, I say I am not aware of any reply to what he calls my attack on his Church.

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

I protest against its being considered that the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) is expressing anything more than his personal sentiments upon this subject. I totally differ from the views of the hon. Gentleman upon this question. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) refers to the clergy of all denominations, although, as the hon. Member went on to say, that it did not refer to Catholics specially. I say, speaking with knowledge in this matter, that the Catholic priests will look upon this Amendment as a fair and honest protection to which they are entitled; and I point out that if hon. Members vote against this Amendment they will be voting against the opinions, not only of Catholic priests, but of the ministers of every Denomination in the country. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman says he he expresses simply his own individual opinion, that is another matter; but then I do not see the object of his getting up. We Catholics do look upon this as a most important Amendment. It is one which, I think, we are entitled to urge upon the Government, and, if the Government decline to accept it, it will be taken by the Catholics of the three Kingdoms as an indication of the intention of the Government to leave this power in the hands of men who we have every reason to fear will use it in the way we have indicated.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

I rise for the purpose of removing a misapprehension from the mind of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. De Lisle). He said that the clergy of the Church to which he belongs, and to which I also belong, do not desire any special protection. But I point out that this Amendment applies equally to the clergy of all denominations. As my hon. Friend on those Benches has pointed out, the protection already exists under the Scotch Law; and, further, I wish to say that the exemption proposed to be given to clergymen of all Denominations rests not upon their sacerdotal character at all, but upon the fact that they are, in common with physicians, solicitors, and barristers, persons to whom confi- dential communications are likely to be made. It is, therefore, considered to be for the general interest of the community that they should be exempt from making disclosure of what is told them.

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

I wish to point out that it is possible for a priest to acquire information which he may consider confidential otherwise than in the Confessional. In the case of Father Keller, who is imprisoned for not answering questions put to him in Court, we obtained the opinion of a very celebrated lawyer in France. And, in reference to Father Keller's refusal to be examined, he stated that it was the practice of the Courts of preliminary inquiry in France to consider that all information which a priest may receive in his ordinary daily vocations should be respected in the same way as if they were received in confession. We do not desire to protect the Confessional, because there is no necessity for that, for no priest would answer with respect to information received in that way—the Confessional would be well defended without our assistance. We are asking this in the interest of the mothers and fathers of families who consult the priests on matters concerning their children. Again, there are parish matters which place information in the possession of the priest, and all these are held to be as sacred, or almost as sacred, by the priest as any communication made to him in confession, and he is quite ready to undergo any amount of inconvenience rather than divulge them. If the Government look to the occurrences which have recently taken place in Ireland, they will find that the police force, who have resisted every attempt hitherto made for the purpose of disaffecting them, have, the moment the Government laid hands on the priests, resigned in considerable numbers. Now, if this Bill goes into law in its present form, it will tend in the same direction, and I have no doubt there will be a large number of resignations in consequence. I am sorry to find that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I believe they are acting very unwisely in striking at the confidence which exists between the people and the priests in Ireland, which has done more for the maintenance of law and order than any Act which can be put in operation by the Government.

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

It is, I think, well for the Committee to understand the position with regard to this question. Previous to the last Division, we asked the Committee to say that no unlawful question should be asked, and we tried to get the word "lawful" inserted. The Committee were not of our opinion, and decided that any question, lawful or unlawful, may be asked a witness, and that the witness must answer the question. We are now asked to believe that the men who administer this Act will respect the position of the priests in Ireland. We know from sad experience that these Stipendiary Magistrates are not worthy of confidence, and we know well the nature of the questions they will put. They are to be the judges as to whether a question is a leading question or not. It is preposterous that the gentlemen who have to ask these questions should, at the same time, be the judges of whether the questions are leading or not. It is notorious that the vast majority of Resident Magistrates who will have to carry out these inquisitorial Courts are Orangemen, and we know that they can use the powers of the private inquiry to endeavour to extract answers from priests that would be injurious to the creed to which these Orange gentlemen are so much opposed. We will admit that there is a certain sprinkling of Catholics on the Bench in Ireland; but, as far as we are concerned, we prefer the Orangemen on the Bench to the "Cawtholics"—as we call them—who disgrace that Bench, and who cater to the prejudices of their opponents by trying to insult the religion to which they belong. So far as we are concerned, we should have no hesitation in saying that if a priest were brought before some of these private inquiries, he would receive more injustice at the hands of the Orangemen of the class of Gentlemen sitting opposite than he would from some of those "Cawtholics," who are a disgrace to their creed. It is evident from the remarks which have fallen from the Government side of the House, that they are going to grant this privilege to attorneys, barristers, and even to the police. We had an instance of that not long since, when a policeman at an inquiry refused to answer questions; and we submit that the privilege extended to attorneys, barristers, and police should be allowed to the priests of our Church. I think, under the circumstances, Sir, that the Government would do well to accept this Amendment, and not further to outrage the feelings of Catholic people by outraging the clergy to whom those people have proved their attachment through long centuries.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

I wish to point out to the Committee that there is really nothing in the Amendment we are discussing which brings out anything connected with sectarianism or anything connected with the Confessional or with Catholic priests. The Amendment affects all clergymen alike—the clergymen of the Protestant religion, as well as the clergymen of the Catholic religion. This Amendment will protect the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston)—who is a divine of his own Church—as well as Catholic priests. Besides, this Bill, if it becomes law, will exist for a considerable period. It may have to be put in force by an Irish Government; and if it were, we should find this clause a useful protection against the Kanes and the Hannas who disturbed the public peace in the North of Ireland. So that really raising the question of the Catholic religion in connection with this clause is beside the purpose. Of course, we are aware of this, that from time to time clergymen have been examined, principally Catholic clergymen, who are more numerons than others in Ireland. We are aware that they have been examined, and committed to prison for contempt of Court for refusing to answer certain questions put to them; but the ordinary law does not prevent these gentlemen from being sent to gaol. The ordinary law empowers magistrates to send them to prison. That is an open question, and has not been generally discussed or approached; but this is a definite law we are asked to pass, and those examinations are not conducted in open Court, but in secret. The circumstances are altogether different; and what may be good in the case of an examination in open Court, may be altogether bad and unsound in the case of a secret inquiry. These gentlemen will be brought into a room where the Officer who is presiding holds a secret inquiry, an inquiry from which all the public are excluded, and the only record of which will be made by a person appointed by the presiding magistrate, or by the person who appointed the presiding magistrate. That being the ease, it is extremely desirable that the scope of the examination which this secret official should be entitled to pursue should be limited. The only objection I take to the Proviso under discussion is that it is not sufficiently complete. Under the French Law, physicians are protected from answering questions of this character, and I do not see why physicians in Ireland should not be similarly protected. I can understand some of the people of Ireland entrusting secrets to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and I do not sea why he should not have protection. I certainly think we might extend this protection to others besides solicitors, barristers, and clergymen. I have pointed out the difference there is between the proposal of the Bill and the existing law under which these examinations take place in open Court; but the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has pointed out, very appropriately, as I think, the state of the Scotch Law. The Scotch Law affords absolute protection not only in private examinations, but also in public examinations, to all clergymen of any Denomination whatever, on grounds of public policy. It is considered unwise that clergymen who have secrets entrusted to them as clergymen, and not as citizens, should be dragged before a Court of Law, in order to have their secrets pumped out of them. I think the proposal to provide an exception of this kind in the Bill will commend itself to the common sense of the House generally. The Government should endeavour to make the question of privilege definite in the Bill. I do not think that their proposal is at all sufficient; besides, so far as it goes, I do not see anything inconsistent with it in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I can only see, in the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment, that which is observable in their refusal to accept all our Amendments—namely, the fault that it proceeds from a certain portion of the House. If it is attempted to confuse the issue by raising a debate on the conduct of the Catholic priest, I would point out that the Amendment has no more to do with the Catholic priest than it has to do with the Protestant clergyman or any other clergyman. It will extend to Turks, Jews, Mahomedans, and the clergy of every other religious persuasion. I do not see what reason can be urged against the acceptance of this Proviso. The Government should not forget that it by no means invades the provisions of the ordinary law in Ireland or England in regard to examination in open Court, and that it is only meant for protection in secret Courts—Courts which are altogether unknown to English Law, which wore only once temporarily established in Ireland, and which it is now sought to establish there permanently.

DR. TANNER (Cork, Co., Mid)

I think the Government ought to give some consideration to this Amendment. This Bill that we have now under consideration is supposed to be a Bill for the promotion of law and order in Ireland. Goodness knows we have had these words often and often reiterated, stalely reiterated day after day. Then, surely, if they have any desire to promote law and order in the country, they will make the alteration in the Bill which this Amendment practically provides for. I was astonished to hear the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle). In the course of his remarks there was only one point that afforded me any consolation whatever, as regards the character of his remarks, and that was his German pronunciation, which was excellent. As regards the remarks themselves, I cannot congratulate the hon. Member upon them, He certainly brought a distinct charge of cowardly conduct against the clergy of his own religion. He said—I will quote his words, for I took them down—"rather than raise a prejudice against them they would sooner let the law remain where it was." He says, in effect, that the priests of his own country would suffer indignity rather than have a prejudice raised against them. If that is not charging the clergy of his own religion with cowardice I do not know what it is. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider these words, and that he will retract and withdraw them. He spoke as if he were the Catholic representative of a Protestant constituency. Well, I happen to be a Protestant representative of an extremely ultra-Catholic constituency. The hon. Gentleman is always fond of posing as a Catholic champion. Just now he stated that he really did not in- tend to pose as a Catholic champion—as a Representative of Catholic opinion on that side of the House, but what did he say? He turned round to the few Gentlemen on those Benches and said they were not to be afraid of any of their Catholic constituents if they voted against this clause, they might take his word for it; and the extra ordinary manner in which he subsequently proceeded to devour his words was more amusing than anything else. I trust the hon. Member when next he makes remarks will do so without indulging in that jocular spirit he indulged in just now. I have risen, however, not to take cognizance of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to which I have directed the attention of the Committee, but to ask the Committee to consider the proposal now made. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should have seen what was the effect produced in Ireland, not in one part of Ireland, but from the Town of Youghal to the City of Dublin, when that reverend gentleman, Father Keller, was dragged up at Toughal and incarcerated in Kilmainham Prison—and, as I am informed, incarcerated on the order of an Orangeman. Is this sort of thing going to be carried on? I am informed that it will be carried on. I have known for a number of years a great many of these Stipendiary Magistrates. I do not wish to trespass on the time of this Committee—I do not like to overstep the lines that are laid down for the maintenance of proper debate; but I could tell you, if I liked, what actually many of these gentlemen have stated in different parts of Cork where I have met them. I am certain that when this Crimes Act is brought into play one of the first things that will be done by many of these people—

An hon. MEMBER

And done to you.

DR. TANNER

Yes; I know the hon. Member would only be too delighted if it were done to me. Perhaps his wish may be gratified; and if it is he may rest assured that I shall be perfectly satisfied. I say this, that one of the first things which will be done—if the pluck of the Government continues, and their stern fortitude does not ooze out at their finger tips, as I believe it will, for I know the stuff they are made of—will be to incarcerate a considerable number of the Catholic clergy. I say every one of the maintainers of true law and order— [Laughter.] Well, of course, I know that the hon. Gentleman who laughs at me considers the stirring up of hostility and strife in the North of Ireland law and order. It may be law and order according to his notion of law and order. I feel no hostility to the hon. Gentleman or any of his followers. I maintain that in Ireland the proper plan of proceeding and of gaining the confidence of the people, instead of going on in that way, stirring up faction and opposition, and Orange riots, is to give them the system of government they want, and which they are sure to get in the end. The Government should pay attention to this Amendment, and not only pass it in its present form, but in an extended form, in view of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who spoke from these Benches, and who clearly pointed out what is the law in France— that not only barristers, solicitors, and clergymen are excluded from examination into the secrets confided to them in their professional capacity, but doctors also. In Ireland, also, these gentlemen should be protected against being forced to divulge any information which they may have obtained in the course of their professional duties. I feel perfectly certain that in this matter there is involved, morally speaking, not merely a legal rule, but a far higher rule, a grand, unwritten code of honour, by which every professional man, whether barrister, solicitor, physician, or, highest of all, clergyman, will feel himself bound. Whether the Government accepts this Amendment or not, professional gentlemen will be bound by that code of honour, aye, even though, in their loyalty to it, they break the law of the land.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I hope no hon. Member on the other side of the House will be induced to record a vote against this Amendment under a wrong impression. There is nothing easier than to make hon. Members representing English constituencies believe that it is the desire of Members in this quarter of the House to hold Catholic clergymen in Ireland excused from the liabilities and responsibilities of ordinary citizens in the country. People have repeatedly attempted to show that we desire to make priests in Ireland free from the ordinary responsibilities of citizenship; and, therefore, I can conceive that it is quite likely that hon. Members opposite may be induced to vote against this clause, under the impression that we are in reality endeavouring to free, unduly, the Catholic priesthood in Ireland from the responsibilities which they owe to the country as citizens. Now, nothing more erroneous could possibly be conceived. We do not for a single moment wish to maintain that the priests in Ireland are not as liable as any other citizens in the country to help in the maintenance of law and order, and in the affairs of the State. We should be very sorry from these Benches—and it would be contrary to the liberal views that we hold with regard to religious matters—to attempt for a single moment to argue that a man, because he was a Catholic priest, should be freed from the ordinary responsibilities of citizens of the country. Therefore, that is not what the Amendment proposes at all; and that argument, I think, should not induce any hon. Member opposite to record a vote against this proposal which deals with quite a different matter. Sir, all that this Amendment proposes is that when a secret inquiry is held, a clergyman, whether he be Catholic or Protestant, shall not be unduly—

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

MR. W. REDMOND

When I was interrupted by the Motion for a Count, I was saying that I hoped hon. Members opposite would not be induced to vote against this Amendment under the impression that we wish to excuse the Catholic priest in Ireland from his ordinary duties and responsibilities as a citizen. Nothing is more erroneous than that idea, and that idea is not the foundation of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The Amendment simply means that when the secret inquiry is making its investigation, the priest or clergyman, whether Protestant or Catholic, shall be excused from answering questions with regard to information which may have come to him whilst exorcising his office amongst the people. Now, nobody objects in the slightest degree to a clergyman, whether Catholic or Protestant, being asked to throw light upon any investigation having for its object the finding out of criminals and the putting down of crime; and I am quite certain that so far from objecting to help in the investigation of crime in the country, the Catholic priesthood would be very glad to do so, in as much as they have always done everything in their power to put down crime in Ireland, and to induce the people to confine themselves to lawful courses of action in struggling for their lights and their reforms. This being so, nobody for a moment will attempt to maintain that there would be any disinclination on the part of the clergyman, any more than on the part of any other citizen, to do what he fairly and reasonably could to help in the investigation of crime. What this Amendment is framed for is this—to prevent a magistrate who calls a clergyman before him at a secret inquiry from being able to send him to prison for refusing to answer a question which the clergyman feels his conscience will not allow him to answer. I can quite understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose information regarding Ireland is extremely small, being loath to believe that there are any men in the country, either Resident Magistrates or any class of the community, who would so far forget themselves as to basely endeavour to get information by unworthy moans from a clergyman, and at the cost of that clergyman's self-respect. But, Sir, we, who know what occurs in Ireland, know very well that there is nothing in the wide world which certain people in that country, and, to a large extent, what magistrates in that country, both Resident and ordinary Magistrates, will not do in order to inconvenience, and, in very many cases, absolutely to insult the clergy of the country, particularly, and almost exclusively, the Catholic clergy. Now, I will just relate what occurred at an Election in the constituency which I represent, and I believe, Sir, that the relation of this fact will do much to illustrate what it is that we fear when we propose this Amendment for the purpose of safeguarding the clergymen of Ireland from unfair persecution and cross-examination under the secret inquiry of the Resident Magistrates of the country. I represent a constituency, Sir, which is equally composed of Catholics and Protestants; and, representing such a constituency, I do not hesitate to say that I believe both my Catholic and Protestant constituents would highly, and do highly, approve of this Amendment, which has for its object the safeguarding of Protestant clergymen as well as Catholic clergymen. I know very well that while the great bulk of the Protestant constituency I represent, and, I believe, the great bulk of the Protestants in Ireland, are disposed to treat Catholic clergymen as equals, and as gentlemen, and as fellow-citizens; and while I freely acknowledge that with pleasure, I am also obliged to say that there are in the North of Ireland certain men bound up in the meshes of Orangeism who will stop at nothing to humiliate and insult Catholics —Catholic clergymen especially. Why, Sir, in the campaign conducted by the Orange Committee in the County of Fermanagh against my Election last year, it was freely stated over and over again, in the most unblushing manner, that the priests who wore supporting me at that Election were responsible for the outrages and crimes which have stained the history of the country during recent years; and it was, moreover, stated that if there was any power which could make a priest divulge the secrets of the Confessional in Ireland, it would be the means of bringing to justice a great many of the criminals. Well, Sir, I need hardly say that, from beginning to end, that was a most outrageous and infamous and groundless statement, and that, as such, it was taken, not alone by the Catholics, but by the Protestant people of my constituency. I know very well that a great many Protestants were quite as indignant as the Catholics at such a thing being said against their fellow-citizens in the Catholic Church. But this goes to prove that there is in the Province of Ulster a minority which goes, to some extent, over the other Provinces—a minority which is so embittered and filled with so much hatred against the Catholic religion, that there is nothing they will stop at to humiliate the ministers of that religion in the eyes of the people; and this I say, Sir, goes to prove that it is necessary that there should be some safeguard for clergymen when they are unceremoniously dragged before this secret inquisition presided over by the Resident Magistrate. It has been stated that a great many of the Resident Magistrates of Ireland are Orangemen. There are some few Catholics amongst them; but the great bulk of them, if they are not Orangemen themselves, are influenced in their surroundings by Orangemen; and I am certain that, more especially in the Province of Ulster, every Resident Magistrate who holds a secret inquiry court will be more or less influenced by the surrounding landlords, and the circumstances in which they pass their daily lives. Whether they are intense Orangemen or not, they will be compelled to call up indiscriminately—right, left, and centre—the Catholic priests of the country, to question them upon matters not relating to crime at all, and to endeavour to insult them by asking them questions as to matters upon which they could not give information except in the way of their calling. That is a thing the Government ought to safeguard against. In the first place, it is infamous that the priests in Ireland—men whose lives are blameless, and have done everything in their power to put down crime—should be called before a secret inquisition and examined in private just as if they were in sympathy with crime, and would not come and give information openly as to criminal matters if they had such information to give. The very fact of considering it necessary to bring them before this secret investigation is more than an insult; but if you wish to prevent the insult going further, make some provision by which neither Catholic nor Protestant clergy — make no distinction at all between them— will be saved from being asked questions. [Laughter.] I do not feel in the least degree surprised that hon. Members opposite should not hesitate to laugh at this. They pass lightly what I conceive to be most disastrous provisions in this Bill containing within them absolute insults to our priests. We are endeavouring to defend our clergymen, whom we know to be men of honest and blameless lives, and our protests are met by laughter. All I can say is, that while the laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite will not deter us from doing our duty, most certainly it will not help the Government in meeting the difficulty they will have to encounter in their attempts to pass this Bill through the House. Now, I leave the hon. Member who thinks it desirable to laugh at our protests on behalf of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, and I say again that I hope the Government will recognize the necessity for this clause and will accept it. Why, it is a perfectly monstrous thing, on the face of it, to say that you will exempt barristers and attorneys from cross-examination with regard to matters which have come to their knowledge professionally, but that you will not extend the same exemption to the clergy in Ireland. I cannot conceive how anyone can think that information which comes professionally to an attorney or a barrister is likely to be more secret, or that these gentlemen are likely to consider themselves more bound to secrecy than a clergyman who receives, in the course of his sacred calling, information which is intended for his ear, and his ear alone. I warn the Government most seriously and earnestly, as a Representative of a constituency where Catholics and Protestants are now living, I am happy to say, peaceably and quietly together as fellow-citizens in one country—I warn them that if they do not accept this Amendment, but leave clergymen in Ireland open to be badgered and questioned in regard to every matter which a Resident Magistrate is prompted to inquire into by any landlord or agent in the district in which he holds his inquiry, he will see a largo number of the Irish priests sent to prison. This will be the effect of refusing to pass this Amendment to safeguard the Irish priests from this cross-examination. I ask every hon. Member in this House, whether English or Irish, if he is desirous to see some sort of an end put to the strife that is going on between the two countries, whether he thinks it will be likely to help us to arrive at a settlement of the Irish Question to have priests sent to prison day after day in Ireland? You have already got a couple of priests in prison in Ireland, men of the highest possible character, men who not only never committed crime, but never hesitated to condemn crime on every possible occasion. Why, Sir, are these men in prison? It is because you insisted, through your authorities, on questioning them in regard to matters on which they said they had no information except such as they had received in the course of their profession—information which, because of that, they could not divulge in a Court of Law. These men are imprisoned to-day because they refused to divulge to you information which they got in the course of their lives as ministers of God's Word in Ireland. These men were examined and bullied, and they refused to give evidence in open Court, and, as a result, they were committed to prison. Well, if, as the result of an open investigation, these priests were sent to prison and are in prison now, I want to know is it not all the more likely that priests will be sent to prison when brought before a secret inquiry at which the magistrate will use as much power as the Czar of Russia? Do hon. Members think that a clergyman under this Bill will be treated more tenderly than by Judge Boyd? I should think not. I should think that, seeing that as a result of Judge Boyd's action in Ireland you have now two most respectable priests in prison, it is certain, if you do not accept this Amendment, these priests, who are respected beyond everything by the people of Ireland, will be dragged before these secret inquiries. They will be brought before the Resident Magistrates, who, prompted by the landlords, will ask them all manner of questions as to their relations with their flocks. If you allow this to be done time after time, you will have priests refusing to answer questions asked by the Resident Magistrate, and, as a result, you will see them day after day sent off to prison. I ask the Government, as an act of simple justice—if justice is to be expected of them, and I fear it is not — I ask them as a matter of justice, even as a matter of expediency, and as a thing which will make their work and duty in Ireland all the more light and easy, and as a means of promoting peace and putting down strife, of which we have quite enough, to accept this Amendment, and not allow the Catholic priesthood and the people of Ireland to read in the newspapers tomorrow that you refuse to extend to the Irish clergy the same protection and consideration which you extend to attorneys and barristers, and that you refuse to protect clergyman from being heckled by Resident Magistrates about matters they know nothing of except through the Confessional, if they be Catholic, and, if not, in the ways of their lives as ministers generally. If the Go- vernment do not accept this Amendment there will be indignation throughout the country. The people of Ireland will be greatly incensed, because they will take it as a further proof that you not only want to pass a Coercion Bill, but that you want to pass it in the roughest and most inconsiderate manner possible. In this manner you will double and redouble the opposition of the Irish people to your measure, because they will see that, not content with outraging the liberty of the Irish people, you would attempt to outrage the priests of the Church.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I am astonished that the Government have not looked upon this Amendment as most reasonable. The Government could easily ascertain—through their sources of information in Ireland—the feelings with which this matter will be regarded—and properly enough regarded—by the people of Ireland, unless safeguarded in the manner proposed by the Amendment. The Amendment proposes nothing revolutionary and nothing inconsistent, even from a Government point of view, with the scope and tendency of the measure. What it does propose is that, in certain circumstances, certain classes of people, that is to say, gentlemen engaged in a sacred calling, shall be preserved from the indignity, and, oftentimes, outrage, to which they would be subjected if brought before these secret inquiries and put under a cross-examination to which they could not in conscience submit. I do not appeal to the Committee as an Irish Catholic Member. I do not speak in a sense either Catholic or Protestant. I appeal to the honourable feeling of the Committee to accept this Amendment, or to support us in this Amendment. I cannot understand the reason of the Government refusal to accept this Amendment. We know very well that the Government are cognizant, and that the Committee are cognizant, of the fact that quite recently two Catholic clergymen were arrested for refusing in open Court to answer questions, because they considered it was utterly inconsistent with their duty, and utterly inconsistent with that sense of confidence which ought to exist between a pastor and his people for them to do so. I should like to point out this additional reason why this Amendment should be passed, and why it is essential that the Committee should accept it. In the case in which the two clergymen I refer to—namely, Fathers Keller and Ryan, were arrested—they were brought before the open Court, and deeming a question put by the Judge in Bankruptcy inconsistent with their sacred duty, and inconsistent with the confidence which ought to exist between clergymen and people, and which does exist to a paramount degree between the Irish priests and their flocks, they thought it their duty to refuse to answer the question. They accepted the penalty and alternative, and are now undergoing imprisonment. Well, Sir, if in open Court they found it their duty to take such a stand as that, the condition of things will be very much worse when you have secret Courts of Inquiry established all over the country, because, at least, in open Court the public had the satisfaction of knowing that though they might regret the manner in which Judge Boyd interpreted the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law, he interpreted it according to his view of the regulations of the Court as laid down by Statute, and as subject to public criticism and before the public eye. But coming before the Resident Magistrates, whom it is a matter of common notoriety are utterly incompetent to deal with nice points of legal evidence, and utterly incompetent to preside over tribunals at which delicate points of law must arise, we say that extra safeguards are necessary for the protection of clergymen. We say that when this law comes into operation and this clause comes to be put in force, large numbers of clergymen will be brought before the Courts of Inquiry, that in discharge of their duty they will feel it incumbent upon them to refuse to answer questions, and that they will be sent to prison. Is that a pleasant thing for the Government to contemplate? You will add to the state of exasperation and to the elements of disorder which are already sufficiently abundant in Ireland, by this Measure which you bring forward in support of law and order. The law will not be vindicated by the imprisonment of clergymen for refusing to answer unjust, irrelevant, and unfair questions. Nor will order be advanced, but will be still further seriously imperilled, and the condition of things will be worse under your Courts of Inquiry than it is at the present time. I do not desire, in speaking in Committee on a particular measure, and in referring to an Amendment of which we desire to talk in a reasonable and rational tone —I do not desire, I say, to refer to the past history of the Irish priesthood; but even the most cursory students of Irish history, the most thoughtless reader of the history of Ireland for the past five or six years, will recognize that if there is one point on which the Government are more certain to break down than another it is when they seek to run a muck against the rights and privileges of the sacred profession of the priesthood, whether Catholic or Protestant. I would urge these reasons in what I believe to be a temporary and reasonable spirit. I say that if the Government are reasonable and seriously desirous, as they allege they are, of maintaining order in Ireland it will be absolutely necessary for them to insert this Amendment in the clause. They must do that if they wish, as far as possible, to remove sources of friction in the future and to make the clause operative from their point of view.

MR. P. MCDONALD (Sligo, N.)

I regret I was not present actually in the House when the debate upon this Amendment commenced, and I must congratulate the Committee upon the great rapidity of its progress during the portion of the evening that I was unavoidably absent. I consider this to be one of the most important Amendments which have yet been discussed. I understand the position in which we find ourselves to be this. The Amendment proposes that this privilege of not answering questions respecting information which has been obtained in the discharge of professional duty should be extended to barristers, solicitors and clergymen. Already, however, it has been discovered that barristers and solicitors are protected by the existing law, so that the question is virtually narrowed down to the case of clergymen, and the question which this Committee has now to consider is this—whether this privilege of not replying to questions on matters communicated to clergymen in a professional capacity should be conceded to them or not. Now it does seem to me that if the Government really desire to make this Bill absolutely inoperative for all useful purposes they will refuse to accept this Amendment, and will rush blindly into the pit- fall which they have dug for themselves. For what is the actual fact with regard to the priests in Ireland—and I speak as a Protestant—and I do say that Englishmen—and I think this is a remarkable proof of the impossibility of one country governing another, of England governing Ireland—do not in general in the least understand the intimate character of the relations which subsist between the priests of Ireland and the people committed to their charge. Those relations have been expressed in various ways. They are to some extent represented by the term "Father"—father and son—which implies the closest possible intimacy of feeling and sympathy, and the Catholic priests, we know, are especially hound by all the most solemn obligations of their oaths not to communicate anything that may be told them in confession. Now I suppose it is not the intention even of the present Government, advised by the Parliamentary Under Secretary with his anti-Catholic proclivities, to require Catholic priests to communicate to these secret tribunals what has been stated to them in the Confessional. I cannot believe that even the present Government can go as far as that, but, as I understand it, this section is aimed not merely against crime in the proper sense of the word, but also against what are called "offences," and one of the offences against which it is directed is conspiracy—namely, the conspiracy of the Plan of Campaign. Now I have no doubt whatever that in various parts of the country the priests have been consulted by their people as to what is their duty in reference to the Plan of Campaign, and no doubt the priests would be able to give information on this subject if they chose to do so; but I say it most deliberately as a Protestant Representative, that they would be false to all that is truest in the traditions of their Church, and false to their sacred position and to their influence with their people, if they were to divulge matters of this sort and were thereby to break the link which binds the people and priests. I believe that if the priests were to communicate these secrets they would lose all the legitimate influence which they now exercise amongst the people, not only in matters of faith, but also in matters of every day life; and I say that if they lost that influence it would be a terrible misfortune to those who would have to govern the Irish people; and I say, in conclusion, that I feel no doubt as to what the result of your refusing to pass this Amendment will be. The priests will be asked to give information before these secret tribunals; they will refuse to give it, and they will be sent to prison in crowds—and they would be false to all that is best in their history if they did not go to prison And when you have sent them to prison in large numbers will you be one whit nearer the pacification of the country? Will Her Majesty's Government find that law and order are more respected? Will not they and the country find that there will be a gulf wider and deeper than ever between the people of Ireland and the Government?—because if there is one thing that the people of Ireland love and revere it is their religion. The people of Ireland reverence the men who labour amongst them, who feel for them in all the circumstances of their lives, and are their friends and companions religiously and politically. I warn the Government of the danger they will run if they refuse this Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 183: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 139.)

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

Mr. Courtney, the next Amendment which stands in my name I propose in order to meet the case of Ulster, where whenever a Catholic is murdered no person is ever brought to justice. The murder of Catholics in the North of Ireland is merely child's-play. Take the case of Philip Maguire. In that case the late Government made no real substantial attempt to punish the offender, and what I wish to provide for is this. That as the Attorney General for Ireland under a Tory Administration will always be an Orange partizan, the deceased person's relatives, or his kindred, in some way should have the power to compel the Attorney General, on their requisition and sworn information, to hold an investigation. Now, the records of the Orange Party in Ireland are simply the records of crime. It is but reasonable that in cases of serious crime you should be able to compel the Government to hold inquiries on the requisition either of the deceased's rela- tives, or, if the injured person has not died from, his wounds, on the requisition of the injured person himself. I do not see how the Government, if they are really anxious to quell crime in Ireland, can resist an Amendment of this kind, which is directed against crime.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, after "criminal," insert "the Attorney General shall direct an inquiry under this section in the case of any crime, whether committed in a proclaimed district or not, upon sworn information made to him by any injured person, or the next of kin of such persons, or of any deceased person."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

Mr. Courtney, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, or one of his Friends, submitted, at an earlier period of the discussion, an Amendment which we accepted—namely, to the effect that the Attorney General may direct an inquiry "if he thinks fit." At the present time these words stand part of the clause. The intention of the Government and the Committee was that it should not be compulsory on the Attorney General to direct an inquiry of this kind. He is an officer who is responsible to this House; he is an officer who may be called to account at any time, and we consider it necessary to vest in him a discretion. In the same way, a discretion is vested in a Resident Magistrate. This Amendment, which is proposed on the ground that the Attorney General cannot be trusted to act properly in certain parts of the country, will certainly not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. and learned Member has said that when a Tory Government is in Office, the Attorney General for Ireland is always an Orange partizan. I desire to give the most emphatic contradiction to such an assertion. I have no sympathy with crime, whether it be committed by Orangemen or by any other members of the population. I have no more sympathy with outrage and disorder, and with disturbance, if the authors of it be Orangemen, than I have if the authors of it are Nationalists.

MR. T. M. HEALY

What about Giffen?

MR. HOLMES

In every case which has come before my notice, I have en- deavoured, as far as possible, to hold the balance evenly between Parties, and in so doing I have only followed the steps of all my Predecessors. As I have already said, we have accepted the suggestion that the words "if he thinks fit" shall be inserted in the clause. We have also accepted the words "in a proclaimed district," and we do not intend to alter the clause in the direction the hon. and learned Member desires. It will make no difference whether an outrage is committed in the North, South, East, or West of Ireland. If it is necessary that a district shall be proclaimed, it will be proclaimed, no matter in what part of Ireland it is. Where it is necessary to have an inquiry an inquiry will be held. It will be directed to be held by the Attorney General acting upon his discretion, and the Attorney General in acting in the matter will be directly responsible to this House, and be ready at any time to account for his action. I must entirely repudiate the assertion that there is any foundation for the allegation that the Law Officers of the Crown, either in this or in any other Conservative Government, have, or have had, any sympathy with disorder, no matter from what particular faction, if I may use the expression, the disorder may come.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not forgotten that he said the blood of Giffen was on the head of Lord Spencer. That expression of his was reported in The Dublin Daily Express, and it distinctly proves that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a sympathizer with the Orange faction. He never repudiated his language; I believe he did attempt, in reply to one of the Members for Donegal, to make out that his language was not capable of the meaning we attribute to it. It was so reported in The Daily Express, and it has remained on record for three years, uncontradicted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had been a Law Officer of the Crown a short time before that, and the language was reported by an Orange reporter in an Orange organ, and, further, was published, as I understand, in the official report of the proceedings. As I have said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never contradicted the language. I should say he is capable of anything, if he is capable of contra- dicting now a report in this newspaper three years old, having allowed it to rest in the meantime. Now, what is this Amendment? This Amendment is aimed at the detection of crime. It proceeds, no doubt, on the supposition that Her Majesty's Government in Ireland will mainly be represented by Orange partizans. Instance me a case of an Orangeman who, having murdered a Catholic, was over hanged. Two or three Orangemen have been convicted of murder, but not one has ever been hanged. I need not go into the numberless cases of murder; but in the case of Philip Maguire we know how the Government transferred the venue to Dublin, how an Orange jury acquitted the man, and how the Judge pointed out to the authorities that they were challenging Mr. Mackintosh, who he said had no sympathy with crime, and how Mackintosh was thereupon left on the jury and acquitted Maguire. Show me the case of an Orangeman who has ever been hanged in Ireland. You cannot do it. If the petty jurors do not do their business, the grand jurors will do it for them. We want, when these crimes are committed against our people, to have some guarantee that inquiries will be held. You tell us you are responsible to this House. What is the good of that? The Government have taken all the time of the House, and I suppose that if we ever did get a day for a Motion of ours they would think it right to clôture us. This House has no sympathy for Irish Business, except it be Irish Business in the shape of a Crimes Act. To say that you are responsible to this House is to use a perfectly illusory expression. You are responsible to the Orange Party in this House. They are the only people you look to—your King-Harmans and your Tottenhams—you have more regard for the little finger of one of them than you have for the whole 86 Members of the Irish Nationalist Party put together. The Government boast of their anxiety to put down crime in Ireland; but when we ask them that an injured party or the next-of-kin of a deceased person shall have the right to demand one of these inquiries they refuse us, because their Attorney General is so ethereal, so devoid of partizanship, that he will be certain to order an inquiry.

MR. HOLMES

I am exceedingly glad that the hon. and learned Gentle- man, by the observations he has just made, has given me an opportunity of explaining a matter which I have desired to explain for some time. It has been referred to once or twice in the debates on this Bill; but, unfortunately, on each occasion it was referred to it was after I had already spoken, and when I could not again interpose in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) referred to the matter; but when challenged by my hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Gibson) he said he made no charge— he was merely quoting. Now, the speech which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M, Healy) has referred to was a speech which was, according to my recollection, delivered in the month of January, 1884, and I am quite prepared to submit the whole of that speech to the candid judgment of hon. Gentlemen, because they will see the connection between the various parts of it. The circumstances under which that speech was made were these—the Crimes Act of 1882 was at that time in force, and in that Act there was a provision which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to prohibit any public meeting which would, in his opinion, tend to endanger the public peace. He had made use of that power to prohibit a number of public meetings in the South and West of Ireland. Towards the end of 1883 he had made use of that power on several occasions. About the same period the Nationalist Party of Ireland announced their intention of holding meetings in Ulster, and it was represented to the Lord Lieutenant that if meetings in the South of Ireland held by the Nationalist Party were calculated to endanger the public peace they were more likely to do so in the North, because in the North of Ireland there was a much stronger feeling between the two factions than there was in the South. That was represented to the Lord Lieutenant from more than one quarter. The first meeting was announced to be held at Rosslea, in County Monaghan. The Lord Lieutenant did not prohibit the meeting, and he did not prohibit it even when a counter-meeting was announced. He prohibited neither one meeting nor the other, and the result was that there was as nearly as anything could be a serious breach of the public peace. In the month of January following—that was in the month of January, 1884—a meeting was called by the Nationalists at Dromore, County Tyrone. Shortly after that meeting was called a meeting was called by the people describing themselves as the Loyalists of that part of the country, to be held the same day at the same place. I was one of those who conceived that those meetings should have been proclaimed in the cause of public order, and for the purpose of preventing public disturbance. That view was also taken by gentlemen of moderate views. It was pressed on the Government of the day; but, notwithstanding that, the Government of the day allowed both meetings to proceed. The result of that was what might naturally be expected. There was a disturbance, and in the course of the disturbance a man named Giffen lost his life. It is not the fact that Giffen fired at any policeman; but, at the same time, I never said that the circumstances under which Giffen's life was taken might not make the homicide justifiable or excusable. On the contrary, I remember stating that I thought the matter was one which ought to be investigated. I certainly do not for a moment say that the circumstances, so far as the authorities were concerned, did not justify the action which cost Giffen his life. At a meeting in Dublin, not a meeting of the Orange Party — it was hardly a very strong Party meeting—I made a speech and referred to this question. I called attention to the various facts which I have now enumerated. I said that the Government of Ireland were culpable in allowing these meetings to take place in the North, having been vested with power to prohibit meetings which were calculated to disturb the public peace, and having used this power in other parts of Ireland, where it was much less likely the peace would be disturbed; and then I used language which has been frequently used in this House in reference to many cases in which, owing to the adoption of a particular policy on the part of the Government, lives have been lost. I said the blood which was shed there rested on the head of the Irish Executive. [Cries of "Lord Spencer!"] Yes; he was Lord Lieutenant at the time. It was not because I conceived there was anything criminal in what had taken place; for, on the contrary, as I said, it was perfectly possible and probable that the action of the authorities was justifiable; but the policy pursued by the Government was a policy which, if there had been any foresight, any consideration, must have been known by the Government of the day would lead to a breach of the peace. That is the explanation I give. I withdraw no observation I made; but what I ask the Committee, or any Members of it who choose to discuss this, to do is to read all the observations I made, and then let them say whether my words wore not perfectly justified by way of criticism. So far with regard to this personal matter. I say again, as far as the enforcement of public justice in Ireland against Orangemen or any other persons is concerned, there is no distinction of any kind drawn. The hon. Member has asked me when was any Orangeman hanged. I really cannot answer that question. [Home Rule cheers.] If he asked me also when any Nationalist was hanged, I could not answer the question. Can the hon. Gentleman point to any case in the North of Ireland where life has been lost or injury inflicted, and where evidence was not forthcoming? This section is devised with the object of getting evidence, and if it should turn out that in any part of the North of Ireland it is necessary to put this section in force for the purpose of obtaining evidence, either against Orangemen or any other persons, it will be put in force. I would not maintain my present Office in this Government for one moment if the section were not enforced under such circumstances.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might have spared the explanation, or, rather, the reiteration which he has chosen to make of his declaration, which I hoped he might have said was an ill-considered declaration—namely, that the blood of this man was on the head of Lord Spencer. Notwithstanding the position which he occupied at the time, the Attorney General for Ireland has shown that his principal object was, as I am bound to say, for Party purposes, to inflame the passions of the Irish people. Considering the task which Lord Spencer was then engaged in performing, doing his duty, as I understand, according to the best of his ability, I am afraid that it is setting an example to Ireland which will be evil in its consequences, that a man who is now Attorney General for Ireland should stand up in this House and say that he did deliberately charge Lord Spencer with having the blood of a man upon his head, or that to-day, during the passing of this Crimes Act, he should reiterate that charge. How can he expect that the Executive Government which he represents will be treated in a different way to that in which he treated Lord Spencer in those days? I have heard the language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the deepest regret. What is his charge against Lord Spencer? It is that having had, under the Crimes Act, the power to prevent all public meetings, he exercised that power according to his discretion, with as little intention to restrain public meetings as he thought consistent with the public interest. That is what Sir George Trevelyan referred to in his letter the other day. He said that the object of Lord Spencer and himself, in the administration of justice in Ireland, had been to use the powers which were given to them as little as possible in restraint of public liberty, and it is because they so used these powers that this charge was brought by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and reiterated to-day after an interval of three years.

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

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) might have recollected that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has revived what might well have been a forgotten contest, it was not because he desired to do so, but because reiterated accusations on the Benches opposite, backed up by the references of the right hon. Gentleman himself on the second reading of this Bill, gave him no choice whatever but to explain and defend—and, in my opinion, he has successfully defended—the action he then took. Well, I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby for rising to defend Lord Spencer. I think he was bound to do so; but he need not be afraid that the example which he thinks may be of such serious import in future will have any bad effect upon the conduct of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I am sure they do not require any leading in that direction. [Loud cries of "Oh!" and "Speak for yourself!"] I know I was not in Office a week before I was accused, and the Government I represent was also accused, of deliberately getting up outrages for the purpose of passing a Coercion Bill, and not only so, but I was deliberately charged by hon. Gentlemen in this House, and by people whom they represent, with having promoted murder. I hope that this incident may now be considered to have come to an end, an incident which I am bound to say was not provoked from this side of the House. I trust that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) who has moved this Amendment will recollect, in the first place, that we have a great deal of work before us to-night, and also recollect, in the second place, that if his Amendment were carried it would have the effect of extending the operation of this clause, which he and his Friends have persistently opposed all along, to non-proclaimed districts —[Mr. T. M. HEALY: Ulster.]—to non-proclaimed districts, whether in Ulster or out of Ulster. And I would ask with what consistency they can really support an Amendment which has the effect of materially extending the clause, every sentence of which, every word of which, and every line of which they have opposed to the best of their ability? I hope hon. Gentlemen will now allow us to proceed to a Division upon this Amendment.

MR. W. E.GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

I must say that I marvel a little at the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) for a peaceable progress of this discussion, when he has himself by interfering in it done everything he can to widen the field and exasperate his opponents, and not for the first time, nor for the first time by a great many, in the course of the discussions on this Bill. I make no reply to the right hon. Gentleman; but I must refer to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which I heard with grave concern. It appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done one thing in this House and another thing in Ireland. I was astonished, I must say, when I—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This discussion is travelling very wide of the Question before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland made a reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has replied to the Attorney General for Ireland. I think it would be consistent with the course of Business if this subject were now allowed to drop.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I can only express my regret that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant chose to lengthen and prolong the discussion. I might, perhaps, have ascertained—

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not going to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but only to comment on the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

May I ask the Attorney General for Ireland one question? He has given an explanation tonight, or an attempted explanation, of his speech at the Rotunda in Dublin. May I ask him to say how it was he came on the second reading of this Bill to declare he never made use of the expression which has been referred to?

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think it is not right that a wrong impression should go abroad on the matter raised by me. On the occasion in question a meeting took place in a purely Catholic district, and those who came in and were bayonetted by the police were men belonging to another county altogether. I admit I am trespassing on the indulgence of the Committee, but I think it is right I should be permitted to explain. I will not trouble the Committee by going to a Division if I am allowed to explain, and in that way it is possible 10 minutes of the time of the Committee will be saved. The meeting was held at Dromore, County Tyrone, and the man who was killed came from Porta-down, County Armagh. Lord Spencer permitted the meeting to take place in the middle of a Catholic district, and what he was blamed by the Attorney General for Ireland for doing was this — that when interlopers from another county 100 miles away, having had their train fares paid by the Orange Society, said they meant to upset the meeting, he did not proclaim the meeting. Giffen, the man who was killed and whose blood, according to the Attorney General for Ireland, was on the head of Lord Spencer, was proved to be something in the linen trade, and to have come by his death 100 miles away from his place of birth and work. In the face of the declaration of the Attorney General for Ireland in regard to this Amendment, I certainly do not feel myself warranted in taking a Division. I take note, however, and the people of Ireland will also take note, of the declaration of Her Majesty's Government, that they will punish the perpetrators of all crimes in Ireland; that they will hold inquiries into crimes, irrespective of whether they are committed under Orange auspices or not. I will rest satisfied, for the present at any rate, or until I see a reason to change my mind, with that declaration, and under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, after "criminal," insert "except with the consent of the witness under examination, no person other than the magistrate and his shorthand clerk shall be present at such inquiry."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

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

The Committee will remember that the Government have accepted an Amendment to the effect that the Resident Magistrate holding the inquiry under this section should himself conduct the inquiry, and should not permit any person to question or examine the witness. What is now proposed is that no person should be in the room except the magistrate and the shorthand clerk. It is quite possible to conceive that there will be times when it will be necessary for the magistrate to communicate with others; indeed, it would be impossible to conduct an inquiry if the magistrate has not some means of communicating with persons concerned. Her Majesty's Government cannot possibly accept an Amendment of this kind.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

When it comes to a question of badgering a witness, or of obtaining publicity of an official character, a policeman and others can be brought in. I admit there is a certain amount of reason in the objection taken to this Amendment—namely, that during an examination it may be necessary for the magistrate to consult with others. But it seems to mo that it would be only reasonable, under such circumstances, to suspend the examination for a few minutes. Perhaps the Government may be inclined to accept the Amendment if it were made to read—"Present during such actual examination."

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think it is reasonable we should ask that the landlord or his agent should not be present during the inquiry. These inquiries will be aimed at so-called conspiracies; and, therefore, it will be most unreasonable to allow the landlord to be present. Will the Government accept the Amendment with any modification? Allow the police to be present, if you like; but "will you keep out the local Bench of Magistrates, who, of course, will be the landlord and agent? Will the Government make us any concession in the matter?

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

It must be quite evident to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that certain officials must be present.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will the Government accept the words—"No person other than the magistrate and official persons? "That will get over the difficulty. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is in his place. I think he ought to lubricate this Committee by a little concession.

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

I have no objection to that.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "his shorthand clerk," and insert "other official persons."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question, "That the words 'his shorthand clerk' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'other official persons' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

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

I beg to move Amendment No. 100.

Amendment proposed, To add after the Amendment last adopted, "Before beginning the examination of any witness the magistrate shall read to him the words of this section."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

Surely it is not wise that this clause should be unduly long.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I now move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, To add after the Amendment last adopted, the words "reasonable adjournment shall be granted to any witness who shall apply for same in order to consult his legal advisors."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

The Committee will remember that we have discussed, on two or three occasions, the desirability of a witness having a counsel or solicitor present at the inquiry. The Committee negatived the suggestion; and, therefore, it is clear that if they adopted this Amendment they would simply stultify themselves.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

The hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that what is asked for is a reasonable adjournment. The Resident Magistrate will be the Judge in the matter, and if he is of opinion there is no ground for the adjournment asked for he will not grant it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I hope the Government will agree that the word "reasonable" really governs this matter. The Amendment will leave the matter in the hands of the Resident Magistrate. If he does not think an adjournment reasonable, he will refuse it. The Government might fairly entrust their agent with the power to grant an adjournment. Surely the Government will admit that a man should be allowed some little time within which to consult his friends or a solicitor. The police will have him under surveillance the whole of the time.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I think this is the very least concession we can ask. We asked that a witness should be protected by having a counsel or solicitor present, and the Government refused that. Then we asked that before a witness is committed to prison under this section, he should have the right to be heard by counsel or solicitor, and the Government refused that. Now, we ask the very lowest form of protection that a witness can get, and that is that if a difficulty arises and a witness finds himself embarrassed, he should, before the inquiry proceeds further, have an opportunity of taking advice. It is hard to see what the Government can say against such a proposition. It is perfectly idle to say it would in any way frustrate the inquiry, or baffle the course of justice. The matter is left absolutely in the discretion of the Resident Magistrate; he can say what is reasonable and what is not; in his hands the whole matter rests. The granting of a reasonable adjournment cannot, in any way, seriously interfere with the holding of the inquiry. Unless a witness is to be wholly and absolutely at the mercy of the official holding the inquiry, the Government must insert some Amendment of this kind.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Government made me a little concession some time ago; if they will not accept this Amendment, I will not detain the Committee by pressing it further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will the Government now insert the words they propose?

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

Yes; I beg to move to insert the following words as a new sub-section:— A witness who is examined under this section shall not be required to answer any question which he might legally refuse to answer on the ground of privilege if he were examined as a witness at the trial of an accused person.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The Amendments 104 and 105 have been already decided. I therefore bog to move No. 106— namely, to insert the words— An inquiry under this section shall not be hold on Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day. I presume it is not necessary to ex- patiate upon the Amendment. Let us have a close time for witnesses.

Amendment proposed, to add, after the Amendment last adopted— (4.) An inquiry under this section shall not be held on Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

The Government cannot assent to this Amendment, because we can well understand that an inquiry may be urgent. I have a very strong opinion that if there had been power to hold an inquiry the morning after the Phoenix Park murders, and thus to examine the persons who were known to be in the Park on the day of the murders, the offenders would have been discovered earlier. If a day or week is allowed to pass before an inquiry is held into the circumstances of a crime, we might just as well allow four or five months to transpire.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that any case can possibly arise in which the lapse of a day would make an enormous difference in the discovery of the perpetrators of a crime. He has one class of casein mind, and we have another. We have a case in mind in which respectable witnesses may, under this section, be harassed and annoyed by being brought away from their homes at all times and seasons. Now, no legal act can be done on Sunday, and no legal offices are open on Sunday either in England or Ireland. It is not reasonable that witnesses should be dragged away from their homes on such days as mentioned in the Amendment, and I do not think the Government are acting at all reasonably in opposing the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Even a Tory Parliament, during the famine in 1848, provided that no eviction should take place on Good Friday.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

I beg leave, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert— Every person examined under this section shall he entitled, on demand made to the clerk of the court before which the examination is held, and on payment of the usual charges, to have delivered to him a copy of his examination. It seems to me only fair that a man who has been examined, and may be put upon his trial, should have before him an authentic copy of the statements he himself has made, so that he may know the charges he has to meet.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, at the end, insert—" Every person examined under this section shall be entitled, on demand made to the clerk of the court before which the examination is held, and on payment of the usual charges, to have delivered to him a copy of his examination." —(Mr. Warmington.)

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

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

I think my hon. and learned Friend should remember that the acceptance of this Amendment would enable an improper use to be made of a witness's examination. We have already decided that an accused person respecting whom an inquiry under this section has been held, or his solicitor, shall, upon his return for trial, be supplied with copies of all depositions taken at any inquiry under this section of any witnesses to be called against him. But now my hon. Friend proposes that every person examined under this section shall be entitled to a copy of his examination. That would put an end altogether to the privacy and secrecy of the inquiry, because everything a man had said would be put into his hands. I do not see how such information could be of any use to a witness. He knows what he has said, and what statements, if any, can be charged against him; and I do not see what could be the object of giving him a copy of his examination.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I think the hon. and learned Member the Attorney General does not quite appreciate the object with which this Amendment is brought forward. It seems to me only desirable that a witness should have an opportunity of correcting the shorthand notes, seeing the danger there is of a charge of perjury being brought against him. I think that it is extremely desirable that a copy of his examination should be supplied to the witness from that point of view. Of course, the statement would only be sent or supplied to the man who had been examined. Supposing there were several witnesses, they would not re- ceive copies of each other's examinations, but each would receive a copy of his own examination. Even if a witness choose to publish his statement, I do not see what objection there could be to his doing so—I do not see how it could affect any other person. He could tell what his examination had been by word of mouth; and what harm could there be in putting forward an absolutely correct statement? It seems to me desirable that a witness should have a copy of the shorthand writer's transcript of his examination, in order that, if necessary, he might make corrections. He should be allowed to do that for the purpose of preventing mistakes. We all know that shorthand writers, however expert, are always apt to make mistakes in transcribing their notes. No harm would arise from sending a draft of a witness's examination to that witness for correction. I would suggest that perhaps it would be well to allow the witness to return to the Court for the purpose of making such correction. My contention is that no person would be safe if, on an incorrect copy of evidence given by him by word of mouth in a secret inquiry, he is to be open subsequently to a charge of perjury in respect of what may appear in a transcript of a shorthand writer's notes. The matter upon which he is charged might possibly be owing to the mistake of a clerk, or the shorthand writer who had taken down the notes of his evidence.

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

In all cases of inquiry in Magisterial Courts depositions are read over to the witnesses, and signed by them. In this clause, however, we have no provision for the reading over of depositions to the witnesses. I would ask the Government to make some provision for that being done.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I think that is a very reasonable suggestion. It appears to me to be only just and reasonable that a witness should have an opportunity of verifying the accuracy of the report of his examination.

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

I would point out to the Committee that as the matter originally stood in our clause the wording adopted was different. We said the magistrate might "take the deposition of such witness; "but it was suggested that the word "statement" would be better than "deposition." The word "deposition" would imply that the evidence should be read over and signed by the witness; but I do not know that the same can be said of the word "statement." However, we will undertake to consider the matter, and introduce such words as will insure that the witness's evidence shall be read over and signed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in saying that the word "deposition" has been omitted, and replaced by the word "statement." In the first part of this clause we have "and shall take the statement of such witness," and towards the end of the 1st section we have words amongst which the word "deposition" occurs. It will, therefore, be seen that the word "deposition" was left out in one place, and put in in another.

MR. HOLMES

The word "statement" was inserted.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But, as I pointed out, the word "deposition" was still left in the section. We have agreed to the following Proviso:— Provided also, that upon any person being accused of a crime respecting which an inqauiry 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 of any witnesses to be called against him.

MR. HOLMES

We will see that the alteration I have referred to is made on Report.

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

we have provided in the 1st section of this clause that a magistrate may bind a witness in his own recognizances to appear and give evidence at the next Petty Sessions, or when called upon within three months of the date of such recognizances. Well, unless a witness is supplied with copies of his depositions, there may be discrepancies between his public evidence and the statement taken before the private inquiry, and then he would be liable to a charge of perjury.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warmington) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. WARMINGTON

I understand that the Government now propose that the examination shall be read over to the witness, and signed by him. That being so—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertakes to introduce amending words into the Bill—I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg to move the insertion in page 2, line 6, after "offence," of the words, "or who has read the depositions taken at such examination." It is provided in the 4th sub-section of this clause that the magistrate who conducts the examination shall not take part in the hearing and determination of the charge concerning any offence which has been inquired into, and shall not, if such offence is an indictable offence, take part in the committing for trial of such person for such offence. Now, it appears to me that not only the magistrate who conducts this examination should be placed under this disability, but that magistrates who have road the depositions taken at the examination should be included in the category. It seems to me to be the same thing to conduct the examination, and to know how the examination has been conducted. Any magistrate who reads over the depositions will come subsequently to the trial with the same idea of the prisoner as he would have had if he had been conducting the examination. It appears to mo that the magistrate who hears and determines the charge, and takes part in the committing for trial, should come to the consideration of the case with a virgin mind. I think that the Government will see that my suggestion in this matter is a fair and reasonable one, especially when it is remembered that we are not dealing with what are properly speaking crimes, but only agrarian matters. If a magistrate comes to the consideration of a Boycotting case with his mind poisoned through reading over all the depositions, he will, under the circumstances, have already prejudged the case. I trust the Government will exclude from the Bench, not only the persons who hold these inquiries, but anyone who knows anything about them. In conducting a trial, the Government, by their solicitor or counsel, will have these depositions in their hands, and I should think that would be quite sufficient for them, without wishing to have the case decided by a magistrate whose mind is already poisoned against the prisoner.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, after "offence," insert "or who has read the depositions taken at such examination."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

I am afraid it will be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to accept this, as I considered it a very hopeful Amendment. However, as I should not be likely to be successful in pressing it, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "offence," insert "or the hearing or determining summarily, or the taking depositions against or committing for trial of any person charged, either in conjunction with such person or separately, as principal or accessory in the commission of such offence."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

We could not accept this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg now to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 10, after "offence," insert— An accused person may require any magistrate, before whom he is summoned, to state upon oath that he is not within the prohibitions of this sub-section. The rules of evidence shall apply to examinations under this section, and leading questions shall not be put, but, if put, need not be answered. Any person committed under this section shall have the right of appeal to the next going Judge of Assize, and shall not be imprisoned pending appeal. I would ask the Government whether, in the case of a committal of a prisoner, they do not moan to give him some appeal beyond the bringing of an action against the magistrate, which would be a very expensive process, and one that a poor peasant would be unable to afford? I think a person committed should have power to appeal in. order to see whether the committal was reasonable or not. The appeal may not be to Judges of Assize; but, at any rate, let it be to some tribunal or other.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "offence," insert— "an accused person may require any magistrate before whom he is summoned to state upon oath that he is not within the prohibitions of this sub-section. The rules of evidence shall apply to examinations under this section, and leading questions shall not be put, but, if put, need not be answered. Any person committed under this section shall have the right of appeal to the next going Judge of Assize, and shall not be imprisoned pending appeal."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

I do not think it will be possible to show, on any principle of our law, that a person should have a right of appeal on a question of contempt. The Committee, in cases of this kind, must depend upon the discretion of the person holding the inquiry.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have hoard of an appeal on a question of contempt; but he has heard, no doubt, that under the Bankruptcy Law there was an appeal as to whether a question put at an examination of a witness, for refusing to answer which that witness was commanded, was a proper question or not. The appeal was conducted in the case I refer to under the form of a Habeas Corpus, which was a very expensive one. That is a process which it would be well to avoid in connection with proceedings under this Bill. The Government say that commitments under the existing law for contempt are without provision for appeal, but I would remind them that they are not now dealing with the existing law. I think it very necessary that an appeal should be given in cases under this clause, because the Resident Magistrates may act very stupidly, and may make serious mistakes. I submit that it would be a great saving of time and trouble to grant this appeal. It would be a saving of time to the Lord Lieutenant himself and to this House, as I will show. If no appeal of the kind is allowed, if the magistrate has acted wrongfully, the prisoner will send up his memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, and the result will be that we, in this House, shall question the Chief Secretary, who may say that these things are in the hands of the Courts of Law, and that the Executive cannot deal with them. We know that that will be the course of events—we have all these things off by heart. If you allow the appeal you will save this round about process, and the result will be much more satisfactory to everyone concerned. I would press this Amendment upon the Government in the hope that they may see their way to promise us something. If they like, let the appeal go to the County Court Judge. I admit that the Judge of Assize would be the better tribunal; but he does not sit probably often enough to render reference to him convenient. He only holds his Assizes once every four months, and to appeal to him would necessarily cause considerable delay. That, however, would not be the case if the appeal were granted to the County Court Judge, who sits very much oftener. I do not feel by any means the same amount of satisfaction with the discretion of the Resident Magistrate as does the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I trust that some appeal will be given against the discretion of these gentlemen, particularly when we remember that 70 out of 80 of them are half-pay officers, and know nothing about law.

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

It must be remembered that all commitments for contempt in England and Ireland have hitherto necessarily taken place in open Court. They will not take place in open Court, however, under this Bill. In England it has always been recognized that a Judge hearing a case in camerâ cannot commit for contempt of Court. Under this clause you will have cases heard in camerâ, and you propose to give a power which is altogether unknown to the law. Under these circumstances, it appears to me to be altogether beside the mark to say that you cannot interfere with the discretion of the magistrate in committing for contempt.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

There is not the smallest analogy to be drawn between the commitment under this clause and commitment under the ordinary law. Under the ordinary law a commitment takes place during the course of an action, and the fact of a witness being committed for contempt does not prevent the case being concluded. Evidence will be given by other parties, the Judge will arrive at an opinion, the suit will terminate, and in a short time, and as the case has come to an end, the person committed will be discharged. But the commitment under this Bill will be altogether different. The answer the witness refuses to give will probably go to the root of the whole inquiry, and the offence will go on indefinitely, because you have no such termination as you would have in the case of an action between two parties. It is altogether misleading the Committee to pretend that there is any analogy between the existing law and this clause.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I wish to know if the Government will accept the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in my name?

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "offence, "insert— "(5) In case any witness examined under this section shall not speak English, the interpreter employed shall not be a policeman or other person in the service of the Crown otherwise than as an interpreter."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

Yes; the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment down to the word "policeman." Inconvenience would arise from the adoption of the remaining part of the Amendment.

Question, That the words '(5) In case any witness examined under this section shall not speak English, the interpreter employed shall not be a policeman 'be there inserted, —put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The next Amendment is in my name. It is a very important Amendment, and one that I hope the Committee will agree to. In the course of the administration of the Crimes Act, the gravest charges were brought against the Resident Magistrates. Witnesses who were brought up were browbeaten and intimidated; all species of threats were thrown out against them, and pecuniary inducements to a very large amount were offered to them if they would only give that class of evidence which would suit the authorities who examined them. I think a state of things like that is a very great evil, and I think that such a danger is one that we ought to guard against when we are establishing this machinery. I do not imagine that the Government will defend the practice of either threatening witnesses with any kind of legal consequences or of holding out pecuniary inducements to thorn to give evidence of a particular kind. There is a danger that something of the kind may happen, therefore I think some safeguard should be adopted.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "offence," insert —"(5) A resident magistrate holding an inquiry under this section shall not induce, or attempt to induce, any witness examined thereat to give evidence by any promise of pecuniary or other reward, or by any threat or menace, and any resident" magistrate acting in contravention of this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

I think that if magistrates were to be guilty of such practices as are suggested by the hon. Member in his Amendment they would commit a very grave offence. I must be allowed distinctly to point out that, whatever the views of hon. Members opposite with regard to Resident Magistrates may be, we emphatically decline to frame this Bill on the assumption that those persons who will have to administer it are going to be guilty of gross misconduct, such as bribery, menace, and things of that kind. We are framing this Bill on the assumption that those persons who will have to administer it will, at any rate, do their duty honestly, so far as this kind of charge is concerned, and that they will not be guilty of corruption. If they should be guilty of corruption or other improper proceedings they will bring themselves within the range of the law, and no doubt will receive adequate punishment; but we must decline to insert in this measure any words that would presume that the magistrates are likely to be guilty of misconduct.

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

The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is a very noble speech no doubt. Nothing strikes me more forcibly than the way in which the Government suppose that every one of their subordinates is a most admirable person, never likely to do wrong. Of course, the way in which the English people have won their liberty is to be always admiring their Sovereigns; to be bowing down before them at all times, and worshipping them as angelic beings; and this House of Commons has won it a position, I suppose, as a temple of liberty, and the whole Constitution has been framed on the principle that the King can do no wrong, and neither can any of his Ministers. We have had a Return presented to us with regard to the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. We have seen who they are. Hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House have not read that Return, and there is nothing to be surprised at in that, because we know from Mr. Disraeli that the aristocratic Party in this country never read anything. Even if they have taken to reading, it is too much to assume that they have read a Return relating to Ireland. When we know that at the inquiries held under the Crimes Act every witness was either bribed or bullied, or sought to be bribed or bullied, it is rather too much to tell us that, under a Conservative régime, the state of things will be very much better than it was under the Liberal régime. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) is not in his place. [interruption.] I think that if hon. Members who insist on preparing their letters for The Times audibly in this House would go out into the Lobby and do it there, it would be much more convenient. I say, I am sorry that the Home Secretary for England is not in his place. He has abandoned as a portion of the system of thief-catching or criminal-catching the offering of rewards. That practice was relinquished by the Liberal Home Secretary, and the Tory Homo Secretary has followed the example Well, while you will not offer bribes in England in order to bring about the detection of criminals, in Ireland, where the people have no confidence in your administration of justice, you still practise corruption, and hold out bribes to the people to give evidence. Now, in England, the classes and the masses are not divided in so keen a way as they are in Ireland, yet you have found it necessary to abandon altogether a portion of your system of police administration here. In Ireland you ask us to say that the magistrates are such admirable persons that there is no foundation for the idea that any possible suspicion could rest upon thorn. All I can say is, that the Government will soon find out, by a system of criticism in this House, that their magistrates in Ireland are not the perfect persons they suppose them to be. Then, I have no doubt we shall see letters in The Times complaining that not only have we, the Irish Members, exhaustively discussed the Bill in its birth, but continue to discuss it after it has become law. So that not only are we occupying time with this Bill now, but a great deal of time may be wasted in the future in discussing matters relating to it, if you refuse to give us such proper Amendments as this we are now asking for. Unless this appeal is granted, we may have hereafter to call attention to the abuse of the discretionary powers granted to the Resident Magistrates, and an endless series of letters may have to be written to that excellent newspaper The Times.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

If all that the hon. and learned Member opposite says wore perfectly true, even then there would be no occasion for accepting this Amendment. If the object of the examination were to bring a person to a conviction by means of false evidence, then it is conceivable that the magistrates might offer rewards to got that false evidence; but as the object of the inquiry is preliminary, to enable the magistrates to get further facts to bring criminals to justice, and as none of the facts can be used against the person who gives the evidence, it is clear that nothing will be more likely to defeat the ends of the examination than for the magistrates to get evidence by means of bribes. They want facts, not fictions, which would be useless for their purpose. It seems to me that this is an utterly useless Amendment, and that, therefore, it ought to be rejected.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not know anything about the Irish Resident Magistrates. He does not know what they have done; he is not as familiar with their filthy work as we are. But we know what disreputable methods they have adopted, and we it is who know how they have been promoted for such work. There is a certain Resident Magistrate who worked the secret inquiry business in Ireland, and one of his favourite stories over the dinner table was, how, when he was conducting the inquiry, he had beside him a pile of sovereigns covered by a table cloth, and how he used occasionally to lift up a corner of the cloth in order to let the witness see the money in the hope that it would operate on his cupidity. A Resident Magistrate is elevated to the position of a County Court Judge. I could give a number of instances in which these matters have been brought up in the public Press at the time they occurred, and the magistrates, in place of being censured, have been rewarded. It is our experience of the past that causes us to make this protest. This Amendment is certainly one upon which we are justified in taking a Division.

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

The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gedge) can scarcely be acquainted with the discussions which have taken place in this House in relation to this question. Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of the Barbavilla case—a case which has been worked up close to the wind? Does he not know that the Government officials have boasted, and praised each other for working cases close to the wind? Our experience is that it is not for the purpose of ascertaining facts that these inquiries are held, but for the purpose of procuring, if necessary, false evidence. Not only have public officials in Ireland sought to procure false evidence, but they have been known to suppress the truth, when the truth contradicts statements that have been already made in secret inquiries. Not only is it by bullying that magistrates in Ireland seek to procure false testimony, but it is also by holding out the probability of the witness, who does not do as they wish, being sent away to the Cape of Good Hope or to Australia, or some other remote part of Her Majesty's Dominions. It is in order to put it out of the power of these unscrupulous magistrates either to bully or to bribe that this Amendment has been proposed, and I trust the Government will accept it.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

No doubt it is because the Irish officials present know a little about the matter that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) was put up to reply to this Amendment. Ono would imagine that, after the whitewashing they have received, the Irish Resident Magistrates would be the most immaculate body of men on earth. Our experience is that, notwithstanding the severe process of purification they have gone through, they are still as black as they can well be. I admit it is a serious thing for Members of the House to suggest that Government officials are capable of the conduct we attribute to the Resident Magistrates of Ireland; but I can assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially English right hon. Gentlemen who are not familar with the devious ways of Irish administration, that there is good reason to believe that our fears and suspicions are well founded. Some two or three years ago I was concerned in a political libel case. An Irish journal was indicted for what is called a "seditious" libel, and one of the strongest passages in that libel was one in which the Government were charged with the very malpractice suggested in this Amendment—namely, that of offering large rewards to witnesses for the purpose of obtaining evidence. The general rule is, that the person charged in a case of libel is not allowed to justify or to prove the truth of the libel; but it was suggested by one of the counsel concerned that, under one section of the Newspaper Libel Act, it was possible that evidence of the truth of the charges made in the article might be allowed. To enable my client to give such evidence, it was necessary I should make some inquiries as to what took place at one of the secret inquiries. At the hearing of the case I was prepared to offer the evidence of 10 or 20 witnesses, every one of whom had been brought up at an inquiry, every one of whom had been threatened, bullied, browbeaten, and intimidated in the manner pointed out in the article, and nearly every one of Whom had been offered money rewards in consideration of giving evidence. In the face of these facts, I can assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite it is quite out of our power to accept these statements as to the character of Irish Resident Magistrates.

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

I understand that the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) objects to this Amendment, because it casts a slur upon the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. I can quite understand him taking the course he does, if he really thinks the Amendment amounts to a slur upon the Resident Magistrates, some of whom are the nominees of his own Government. But the object of this Amendment is simply to lay down a strict rule which those magistrates shall observe. The Attorney General can only object to the wording of the Amendment; if he would word the Amendment in such a way that it would not, in his opinion, cast a slur upon these magistrates, and still give us the benefit of the Amendment as it stands, we shall be perfectly satisfied.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St Patrick's)

I beg to move Amendment No. 114b which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 10, after "offence," insert— "The Lord Lieutenant shall cause to he published in The Dublin Gaztte, once in every month, a Return of all persons who have been committed to prison at any inquiry held under this section, and who may be still detained in prison, on a date one week preceding each such publication. Such Return shall contain the name, address, and description of each prisoner, together with the date of his commitment, and the cause of committal, and, if he was subsequently brought up for examination, the date on which he was last remanded." — (Mr. Murphy.)

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

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

The Government cannot assent to prepare a monthly Return; but they are quite prepared to lay one upon the Table of the House at the opening of every Session of Parliament.

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

I do not see what object there can be in keeping these committals secret; indeed, the Government are prepared to make a Return yearly. But I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the use of a Return presented at the beginning of each Session? Take the case of a man who has been committed to prison under this section —say, for three months. What can be the object of making a Return of his committal nine months afterwards? This is not a matter which affects the principle or the working of the Bill; and, therefore, I think that we ought to have a Return presented at least once a month.

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

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) will see it is no protection to the prisoner at all that a Return should be presented monthly, quarterly, or yearly. The protection to be given is that Parliament should have some knowledge of the working of the section, and that knowledge would be obtained from a Return presented yearly.

MR. T. M. HEALY

It is our opinion that witnesses would find very substantial protection in the knowledge by the British public of what was going on. I do feel the Government might reasonably agree not to exclude even from the knowledge of the Primrose Dames the number of persons who are committed to gaol under this section. This is an Amendment which does not at all touch the principle of the clause. It only provides that information should be given to the country. If the Government will not give a Return monthly, will they do it quarterly?

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I venture to appeal to the Government, as I understand them to be practically making a concession in this matter, not to make it in a grudging fashion. The preparation of this Return cannot be a serious matter; therefore, why waste time as to the number of times it shall be presented?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I trust the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Murphy) will not persevere with this Amendment. This Return has never been introduced in any Bill of this kind. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Yes; Forster's Act.] We shall make a Return yearly, and will put Parliament in full possession of all that Parliament really wants to know. If other Returns are wanted, hon. Members can, of course, move for them.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I only speak from memory; but I think that a Return was laid on the Table under the Act of 1881.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that such Returns as are now asked for were not issued quarterly under the Act of 1881, and published in The Dublin Gazette, and from that copied in all the Irish newspapers? It is quite clear that the Government wish to make Bastiles of the Irish gaols.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Perhaps I may enlighten the Committee upon this point. Mr. Forster's Act, I see, provided that a list of persons for the time being detained in prison under it, with a statement of each person's name, address, and prison in which he was detained, and the ground of the warrant, should be laid before Parliament in the course of the first seven days of every month when Parliament was sitting, and should be published in The Dublin Gazette, when Parliament was not sitting, in the course of the first seven days of every month.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-tenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) says this is no protection for prisoners who are arrested. He is labouring under a mistake. It is not many years ago when a man named Casey was four years in gaol, and was altogether forgotten. It is quite possible that even now a Resident Magistrate might run a man into gaol, and then find some reason to forget him. I think it is as well that the Return asked for should be published in The Dublin Gazette. Papers which are laid on the Table of the House are generally forgotten; whereas if they are published in The Dublin Gazette they are immediately copied into the general Press of the country, and they attract attention. I can quite understand why this Government does not wish the proceedings of the Resident Magistrates to be published; but I think, seeing that there is a precedent for the making of this Return—namely, a similar provision to this in Mr. Forster's Act of 1881, the Government should now accept the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I should like to know what is the real reason of the attitude of the Government upon this most reasonable Amendment? Upon what ground can they refuse it? The publication cannot do any conceivable harm. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says that he will give us an annual Return. What is the meaning of that? It means that he will inform the public of the number of persons who have been arrested under this clause; but he will inform them of it when the people have got out of gaol. That is the real meaning of the offer of the Government; because it is inconceivable they should keep any man in gaol, under this clause, for so long as twelve months. The inevitable result of merely publishing this information in the form of a Parliamentary Return is that nine out of every ten men whose names will be contained in the Return will have been long since released. The Chief Secretary has said that witnesses will find a protection in the knowledge by Parliament of how this clause has been worked. We have no confidence whatever that this Parliament will make any effort to see that this clause is properly worked. Our hope is not in this House, but in the opinion of the masses of the British people; and it is in order to bring information home to them that we ask for this Return. The Government are carrying out a policy of suppression and concealment, and therefore are determined that this information shall not be given. It is our duty to see that the Committee is not misled by the illusory and, I might almost say, absurd suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Under this section a magistrate has full power by day and by night to catch any unfortunate person who he thinks knows anything about an offence—drag him from one end of Ireland to the other, bring him before a secret Court without any publicity, and then, if he thinks proper, cast him into gaol, now is the prisoner to got his witness, when no one knows in. what gaol he is lodged? If this Return is made once a month, it will be seen where a man is, and with what offence he is charged. It is quite evident that the Government desire that witnesses should have no opportunities afforded them of defending themselves. I trust the Committee will see that justice is done by these men.

MR. MURPHY

The Government seem to decide, before they come down to the House, on what points they will make any concessions, and on what points they will refuse them. In this case they seem to have made up their minds under the impression that the Act of 1881 did not contain any provision of this sort. Now, Sir, as it has been shown that the Act of 1881 contained a provision substantially the same as that I now propose. I think the Government will be only consistent if they accept my Amendment.

MR. O'DOHEETY (Donegal, N.)

In any case The Dublin Gazette will have to be used for the purpose of publishing notices proclaiming districts. There, therefore, can be no reason whatever why the Government should not use The Gazette for the purpose of showing what persons have been sent to gaol under the section.

MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

Surely it is a most modest and reasonable request that the country should be placed in a position to follow the working of this Act. If the Government will not consent to furnish us with this Return oftener than once a-year, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I trust we may be spared a Division. What objection can there be to the Government making this Return once a quarter? The object of the publication of the Return is to inform the public as to the working of the Act—an Act that is exceptional in its character, and in the working of which the people are naturally much interested. the Return will not be very voluminous; therefore, I trust the Government may at least consent to its being made once a quarter.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is suggested that we should insert in a permanent Act a provision for a quarterly Return. There is no reason why this Return should be made every quarter. When any hon. Gentleman thinks a Return is desirable, let him move for it. ["How can we during the Recess?"] Do not let us embody in the provisions of a permanent Statute anything so absurd and unnecessary as a quarterly Return.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. II. Smith) to indulge in his favourite pastime, and to Clôture this discussion; but to do so by impressing on his Colleagues the desirability of making a concession upon such a small point as this. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary practically gives up the whole case, when he says this Return can be moved for. Why should we be put to the trouble of moving periodically for this Return? Why should the furnishing of a piece of information like this be at the mercy of any Member of the House who chooses to put down a block to the Motion for the Return? Why should the Government refuse to give us a Return? When we are told the Returns can be moved for when wanted, I would point out that it is quite customary to block official Returns, even of the most simple character. What I want to impress on the minds of the Committee is this—that the demand we make is in strict accordance with all the precedents. When Mr. Forster's Act was passed in 1881, a similar Return was provided for; but we do not press for a monthly Return; we should be quite satisfied with a quarterly one. I heard someone say that there were quarterly Returns under the Land Act, but that is contrary to my recollection, which is that the Returns were monthly under that Act. Does the Chief Secretary mean to say that there is no reason in what is going on in Ireland for such a Return? I am reminded of cases in which persons were sent to prison, and kept there for months and even years, until everybody seemed to have forgotten them. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) has drawn attention to a case in which a man was actually kept in prison for four years without anyone knowing of it except his nearest friends.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Government are willing to accept the Amendment, No. 130, which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy).

MR. T. M. HEALY

I will just road to the Committee the section of the Act of 1881 which has been already referred to. The section provides that a Return shall be laid on the Table of the House every week while Parliament is sitting, and be published in The Dublin Gazette every month during the remainder of the year of all persons arrested under the Act.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say that the Government accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford, No. 130, which says— There shall be laid before Parliament, at the beginning of every Session, a Return showing the number of inquiries held since the preceding Session, the number of summonses issued, the number of witnesses examined, the names of, and the sentences on, the persons committed for contempt, and the result, if any, of each inquiry. May I ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether he has read this Amendment.

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

I have done so carefully.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to point out that the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Murphy), and that of my other hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) are essentially distinct. The first proposal is, that there should be a Return published every month, and it should be confined to persons who have been committed to prison under the Bill, while the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is that there shall be laid before Parliament at the beginning of every Session a Return showing the number of inquiries hold since the preceding Session, the number of witnesses examined, the names of and the sentences on the persons committed for contempt, and the result, if any, of each inquiry. That is a totally distinct thing from the other proposal. The Committee ought to know definitely from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland what it is that the Government accept.

MR. HOLMES

The Government believing that something in the nature of the information asked for should be given, have looked over the Amendments on the Paper, and agreed to accept that of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy).

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

I should like to ask the Government whether the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford covers the period during which Parliament is in Session?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes; Certainly.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I think the proposal is a most reasonable one, and I hope the Government will accept it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Government ought to bear in mind the case of Patrick Casey, who was imprisoned under the Westmeath Act. Although that man was unconvicted of any offence, he was kept in prison for four years, when, at length, Mr. Roebuck called attention to the case in Parliament, and the man was immediately released. That man had never been tried for any offence, and his release was granted by Mr. Disraeli's Government. What we want to do is to prevent the recurrence of such cases.

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

What the hon. and learned Member opposite seems to think possible could never happen under the present Bill, because those who are sent to prison must be brought before the Court and questioned every eight days. Therefore, the prospect of their being allowed to languish in gaol, without ever being seen or heard of, is quite out of the question.

MR. BRADLAUGH

There is no reason, that I can see, which would justify the Government in refusing the Amendment. As was the case in 1881, Parliament, in giving power to commit men to gaol under this clause, naturally wants to know how that power is exercised. I cannot understand why the Government waste the time of the Committee in discussing a matter of this kind. If it is right to refuse the proposal before the Committee let the Government refuse it; but to haggle about the Question as to whether a Return should be made once a month, or at longer intervals, is monstrous, and I fool bound to enter my protest against it.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

May I be allowed to suggest to the Committee that the return should be made once a-quarter. I hope this will meet the views of hon. Members below the Gangway.

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

The Government accept that suggestion.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Murphy) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. MURPHY

Yes.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

I want to point out that I think the wording of Amendment No.] 30 could not possibly carry out all that is required.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I will undertake that the wording shall be carried out as stated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOCKWOOD (York)

In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name I do not intend to trouble the Committee at any great length at this late hour, and I hope that if only a short time is taken in moving this Amendment hon. Members will not suppose that that result is due to a want of appreciation of its importance. I am willing to admit that this Amendment proposes seriously to modify both the stringency and the scope of the section to which it relates; but if I correctly appreciate the position of the Government in regard to this section, it is that they are fully alive to the extraordinary character of the powers they ask for under it, and are honestly willing to apply those powers only when urgent occasion for their exercise arises. Under the Indictable Offences Act of 1883, Clause 12 deals with the same matter as is dealt with by this section of the present Bill. I have no doubt that Clause 12 of that Act is familiar to hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, and, if so, they will see that without some such modification as I now propose, the Government will be extending to the Resident Magistrates powers of an almost unlimited description. I am sure the framers of this Bill have had the intention of modifying the stringency and scope of this section. Anyone need only look at this 1st section, in the second line, where the word "offence" is used, and then look at the subsequent lines, where the word "crime" is used, in order to see that the section has undergone at one time or another a process of modification. If, however, that process of modification had been perfect, no doubt the word "crime" would have been corrected, and the word "crime" would have been used in the first instance. Now, I ask the Government to continue the process of modification in the same spirit as that in which it was at first adopted. Let them just imagine what will be the nature of the inquiries the Resident Magistrates would be entitled to make under this section, if it be allowed to remain as it is at present. Here is one offence—If any person shall encourage any other person to take part in a conspiracy with a third person to induce a fourth person not to work for a fifth person in the ordinary course of trade. Surely the Government do not intend to ask the Committee to give the Residential Magistrates power to apply such an extraordinary provision as this. I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) for an assurance on this point. Then we have any person who shall incite another to interfere with the ordinary operation of the law. Suppose an inflammatory speech should be made in this House, charging the high crime of murder against any Member of Her Majesty's Government, would not that be an interference with the ordinary operation of the law? I say it would be a most serious interference; but is it to be suggested that the section was intended to apply to an offence of that description? I trust the Government will give the section their earliest consideration, with a view to its further modification. I will only further detain the Committee in order to toll them that I have taken the extraordinary crimes mentioned in the 4th section of this Bill as those which are regarded by the Government as being the most heinous crimes which the section is intended to meet; and I now ask the Government, in a spirit of moderation, to accede to my Amendment, and accept the words I propose.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word "are" to end of Clause, and insert the words—"(a) Murder or manslaughter, (b) Attempt to murder, (c) Aggravated crime of violence against the person, (d) Arson by statute or common law. (e) Breaking into, firing at or into, or otherwise assaulting, or injuring a dwelling house, however such crime may be described in an indictment."—(Mr. Lockwood.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'any felony' stand part of the Clause."

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

I appreciate the fair way in which the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Look wood) has brought this Amendment before the Committee; but I must point out to the Committee why it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment. I would, first, say one word, by way of criticism, upon the word "offence" occurring in one line, and the word "crime" occurring four or five lines down. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York has assumed that because these two words occur, it was the result of some scheme by which offence should be taken as meaning something lighter than crime. He must permit mo to say he is quite mistaken in what he assumes. For the purposes of this section Her Majesty's Government could not allow any distinction between offence and crime; where they wished to draw a distinction, they have done it in another way. As the Chief Secretary for Ireland has pointed out, where "offence" and "crime" have both occurred it has been through inadvertence, and there is no desire to make any distinction between the two. The word "crime" accidentally crept into the Bill; and I admit that it was a bad and careless piece of drafting. We have, therefore, now to consider, putting aside this criticism, whether or not this Inquiry section, as it is called, ought to be applied only to the more heinous crimes enumerated by the hon. and learned Member, murder or manslaughter, attempt to murder, and so on. I would first say I do not think this question is decided by the application of Sub-section 5, because it might apply to a light offence under the earlier part of the section. That would be an argument, if it is one at all, for limiting or altering the words in. Subsection 5 and Clause 2. But that is not the object of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, the real point of which is that he proposes to limit the inquiry only to that class of offences enumerated in his Amendment. To that Her Majesty's Government could not for one moment accede. If there is one crime or offence—I care not which it is—which requires this Inquiry section to be put in operation more than another, it is the crime or offence—as I have said, I care not which it is—of the conspiracy to Boycott. [Laughter.] I think the hon. and learned Members below the Gang- way know by this time we are quite accustomed to their receiving our arguments with laughter. It is impossible for us to regard Boycotting as a matter to be laughed at. We have recommended in this House, for reasons we have put before the House, that the crime of Boycotting deserves to be dealt with strongly and with a firm hand. I do not suppose hon. Members will deny this is a matter in which the most valuable work of the Inquiry section will be done, because-persons dare not give evidence openly with respect to Boycotting. This is a test case, to which, without going further, I call the attention of the hon. and learned Member for York. This is the test case for which the principle is contended. I am not now discussing whether there should be any modification of Clause 2; but we consider there are offences punishable under Clause 2 of this Bill which would require to be inquired into under Clause 1, and therefore we cannot assent to the proposal that the Inquiry Clause should be limited to those the hon. and learned Member has mentioned. I have now sufficiently indicated the principle on which we are prepared to stand—namely, that this power of inquiry shall not be limited, but shall include all substantial offences under the Bill.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Scotland, Liverpool)

Let mo first inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that he rather misapprehended the laugh that came from this quarter; it was a cheer rather than a laugh, and the cheer was not at the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman—for I confess I was unable to find any argument in his remarks— but the cheer was meant that at last we had the Government letting the cat out of the bag. I very much regret that I did not think of bringing along with mo a Western newspaper, which contained a report of a speech of a Member of the Unionist Liberal Party, delivered in the St. Austell Division of Cornwall, I think by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine). There have been very many distinguished Unionists down in that neighbourhood; but, I think, as the speech was so absurd and exaggerated, that I am right in attributing it to the hon. Member for Barrow. And what did he say?— The Liberal Unionists are denounced for supporting the Coercion Bill of the Government; but what is it for? It is for putting down murderers. If it were only for that purpose the Bill would have passed in three days in this House, with not one word more of dissent from this part of the House than from any other. The hon. Gentleman in this speech said— We are supporting the Bill of the Government, because we believe it is for the purpose of putting down murderers, moonlighters, and houghers of cattle. Now, we have the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General telling us that one of the most stringent and exhaustive powers is not merely for putting down murderers, moonlighters, and houghers of cattle, but is for putting down conspiracy to Boycott. ["Hear, hear!"] I wish to make my meaning clear, even to hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who say "hear, hear." It may be right or wrong that this Bill should put down conspiracy to Boycott; but it is obviously not accurate to describe a Bill which proposes to put down conspiracy to Boycott as exclusively aimed at murderers, moonlighters, and houghers of cattle, which is the description given by Liberal Unionists. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General devoted some portion of his speech to meeting the point of "offence" used in one part of the clause, and "crime" in the other, and rather unnecessarily laboured the point, for the purpose of showing that crime and offence meant the same things in the mind of the Government. We know perfectly well that offence and crime mean the same in this Bill in the eyes of the Government, for there is the same machinery for the detection and punishment of the lightest offence as for the gravest crime; therefore, they mean the same except upon election platforms, when Liberal Unionists and Tories say little of the offence and speak largely of the crime. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was not fair to bring the consideration of the 2nd clause of this Bill into the consideration of the 1st clause. I altogether traverse that proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The clause, if it be allowed to stand as it is, will bring under its purview every slight offence created by this Bill if committed after the passing of the Act—that is the one limitation. Every offence created by this Act—

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I have an Amendment down upon the Paper.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I know, and I have read it; but what I may call the more trivial offences, or those created by this Act, will not come under this secret inquiry unless committed after the passing of the Act, and in a proclaimed district. That is the distinction made; accordingly, every single offence which is an offence under the 2nd clause of this Act, and in a proclaimed district, after the Proclamation, comes under the survey of the secret inquiry. The hon. and learned Gentleman treated the matter perfectly unfairly, and, from a logical point of view, very uncandidly, in confining his observations to conspiracy to Boycott; he ought to be able to prove to the Committee that the Government were justified in bringing the secret inquiry to bear upon every offence under the clause. We are entitled to expect that everything that becomes an offence under the 2nd clause of this Bill will be brought under review of the secret inquiry. What does that imply? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York gave one case; I will give another. Suppose I went down to the property of the Marquess of Clanricarde, and I said to the tenants upon that property—"My friends, I find that you have not paid your rent, and that the landlord is threatening you with eviction, and you are not taking any means whatever to prevent that; you are unable to pay, and yet you are taking no means for the purpose of producing a reduction of your rent; "suppose I further said—" If you look to another portion of the property of the Marquess of Clanricarde, you will find the tenants there were prudent enough to go into the Land Court and get a 30 per cent reduction, every penny of which the Marquess exacts from you; "and if I then said—" It is your duty to combine together to see if, by combining, you can get a reduction of your rents equal to the reduction in the case of your fellow-tenants," under the 2nd clause of this Act I would be interfering, not to compel, but interfering by power of persuasion with persons in the letting, hiring, usage, or occupation of land, and, therefore, guilty of an offence under this Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Subsection 5 of Clause 2.] Yes; Sub-section 5 of Clause 2, which is— Any person who, by words or acts, shall incite, solicit, encourage, or persuade any other person to commit any of the offences hereinbefore mentioned. You cannot make a speech, you cannot write an article, or hold a conversation which may not be interpreted into persuading a person to do a certain act; and if you hold a conversation at a private dinner-table interfering with the relations of landlord and tenant, you are guilty of an offence under the 2nd clause; and a Resident Magistrate would have the power to drag you, to drag the host, to drag every one of your fellow-guests before a secret inquiry, and in that way to submit to examination every single act done that had any reference, nigh or remote, to the relations of landlord and tenant. I submit the question to the Government—is not that a great abuse, and an inexcusable extension of the power of the secret inquiry? Under these circumstances, that is a question we have really to argue very strenuously and emphatically. I am convinced that even if Tories outside in the constituencies were to know that secret inquiry was not for the purpose of tracking-murder, but for the purpose of dragging into the authority, terrorism, and intimidation of secret inquiry, every combination of tenants against landlords' evictions and rack-renting, I am sure a large number of Tories would have enough of the English love of liberty to protest against it. I see the Chief Secretary is anxious to get up—[" No, no! "]—and I will not longer stand between him and the Committee. Activity is so unusual a sign of the right hon. Gentleman, that I do not wish to deprive the Committee of this unusual phenomenon. I could say much more; but at this hour, a quarter to 1 o'clock, I do not wish to take up more time; still, I must say I think we are now really testing the meaning of the Bill and the bona fides of the Government.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I wish to call the attention of the Government to the great difference of the offence of conspiracy in regard to this inquiry from any other offences. At all events, they cannot take shelter in this matter under the Act of 1882; there was no inquiry into any question of the character of conspiracy under the Act of 1882; all those subjects which could be inquired into there were matters which were overt acts. When a murder takes place, there is the body of the murdered man, a house broken into, those are overt acts; but what is the character of a conspiracy? It consists in the agreement, the secret agreement, and there need not be any overt act whatever in order to charge conspiracy. What are you going to inquire into privately? You are going to inquire into privately some secret agreement which this inquiry is alone going to reveal, and, in point of fact, you may start this inquiry without there being any offence at all; therefore, no one is safe, because the Resident Magistrate may surmise there is an agreement, of which there is no evidence, and may proceed to a secret inquiry to find the evidence of that agreement of which there is no other proof. That is a most dangerous and unheard-of proceeding. We ought to be extremely careful in this matter, because there is no book on the law that does not warn us of the extreme danger of giving this power of interpretation, even to the most learned mind, of the Law of Conspiracy. I speak of conspiracy now, because the Attorney General has rendered his whole case upon it; it is the thing for which this clause is required. I venture to urge on the Committee that inquiry of this character ought never to be allowed. I am not speaking of the conspiracy to Boycott merely; but I would like to inquire what that ambiguous word means. If it is a conspiracy merely to agree, like in a trades union, not to work except at particular wages, then there is no overt act at all, and the use of the words "conspiracy to Boycott" is meaningless. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the seriousness of giving a power of this kind in such a vague and undefined thing as the Law of Conspiracy. What is the Law of Conspiracy? I am speaking in the presence of lawyers, and they will not deny what I say, that the Law of Conspiracy is that which any Judge may hold to be morally wrong or socially inexpedient. You are going to leave that which it has been proved is not safe in the hands of any but safe Judges to the Resident Magistrates, for them to create an offence out of their own con- science by determining it to be an act of conspiracy. Let mo read this sentence from Roscoe's Criminal Law— Conspiracy is defined as an agreement to do an unlawful act. Roscoe further says— But the word 'unlawful,' on which it turns, is ambiguous, and appears to be used in definition in a sense in which it is nowhere else used. It has no precise moaning, and the definition is, in reality, no definition at all. That is the power you are going to give into the hands of these Magistrates, and on which they are to found a universal inquiry. There is no one that you could not surmise to have entered into an overt act. This writer goes on to say— The vagueness of these propositions leaves so broad a discretion in the hands of the Judges, that it is hardly too much to say that plausible means may be found for declaring it to be a crime to combine to do almost anything which the Judge may regard as morally wrong, or politically dangerous. The power which the vagueness of the Law of Conspiracy puts into the hands of the Judges, is something like the power which the vagueness of the Law of Libel puts into the hands of the juries. That is the Law of Conspiracy, and you are going to leave the Resident Magistrates to declare at Common Law anything he regards to be morally wrong, or politically dangerous, to be a conspiracy, and, having assumed that, to make use of this inquiry to any extent he may desire. The writer goes on to say— Another remarkable circumstance connected with the Law of Conspiracy is that it renders it possible, by a sort of fiction, to convert an act innocent in itself into a crime, by charging in the indictment, as an overt act of conspiracy, of what there is no other evidence but the act itself. In that instance there is the protection of a jury; but here you are going to give this dangerous implement, without the protection of a jury, to a man who is not a Judge. The writer continues— In other words, if the jury choose to impute bad motives to an act primâ facie innocent, they can convict those who combine to do it of conspiracy. I undertake to say that under this subsection, even with the words the Attorney General proposes to insert, that what the Judge may choose to hold as being a conspiracy may be so held, although Parliament has been previously obliged to step in and put an end to a decision of that character. It is of this sort of proceeding that Baron Rolfe said— It never is satisfactory, though, undoubtedly, it is legal. Cockburn said— This course operates, it is manifest, unfairly and unjustly against the parties accused. The prosecutors are thus enabled to combine in one indictment a variety of offences which, if treated individually, as they ought to be, exclude the possibility of giving evidence against one defendant to the prejudice of others, and deprive defendants of calling their co-defendants as witnesses. That is the answer to the hon. and learned Attorney General's point—it is never satisfactory, though undoubtedly legal, and Chief Justice Cockburn says this operates unjustly and unfairly against the person accused and to the advantage of the prosecution. That is exactly this case. You could have up the whole village on a surmise and charge of conspiracy, have every one up on an overt act, and charge the agreement as a conspiracy. Agreement has been laid down to be the overt act; therefore, you may have the whole village up on a surmise of conspiracy, and embrace the whole of them in the conspiracy. I gather from the Attorney General that is the very object with which this clause is framed. In the year 1812, which was a period when there was great disturbance in this country, and there were many combinations proceeded against, it was thought necessary to revise the jurisdiction of the Courts of Quarter Sessions, and an Act was passed, 5 & 6 Vict., c. 38, by which the power of dealing with these combinations and conspiracies was expressly taken away from Quarter Sessions, and now that which the English Parliament would not allow an English Court of Quarter Sessions to deal with on account of the character of the offence, you are going to give to Resident Magistrates. I think I have given the Government very considerable authorities why such a course should not be taken. I will give one more, and that is the Commission on the Criminal Code. The Commission on the Criminal Code, consisting of the most eminent Judges now living on the Bench, said Section 5 will have the effect of preventing indictments at Common Law for conspiracy, and they absolutely considered it necessary to put an end to this dangerous and mischievous doctrine of Common Law Conspiracy. They said— An agreement to do unlawful acts has been said to be a conspiracy. No definition is to be found of what constitutes unlawfulness; it seems to be unsatisfactory that there should be any indictable offence of which the elements should be left to uncertainty. That is their decision on the question of the Law of Conspiracy, and they accordingly recommended its adoption in the Criminal Code introduced by the Attorney General of the Conservative Government. Is it possible to have a more overwhelming mass of authority in favour of restricting the operation of this clause, and of putting an end to legislation containing this mischievous doctrine of Common Law Conspiracy? And yet it is just that doctrine which Section 2 of this Bill establishes. Under that section you make this conspiracy an offence, and you apply to it the whole of this inquisitorial inquiry. That seems to mo to be a most dangerous and unjustifiable thing, and one which is certain to cause extreme irritation. There is absolutely no limit to it. The magistrate can treat as conspiracy whatever he likes. Take the 1st sub-section of Section 2— Any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfil his or her legal obligations, or not to let, hire, use, or occupy any land, or not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business or occupation, or to interfere with the administration of the law. Under this sub-section a Resident Magistrate may take up half-a-dozen men in a village. There may be some land to let, and he may say—"I suspect you have entered into an agreement about this land; have you done anything about this land; have you talked about this land; have you formed any intention about this land; have you agreed with anybody else about this land?" Such questions would be perfectly proper under this section. It will be a criminal proceeding for three men to meet together and to enter into an agreement not to occupy certain land, except at a particular price. I hope now-a-days that such an action would not be treated as criminal—I hope that no Judge would so treat it—but if any Judge should do so, there is no one who could say that there are not decisions which would justify him in so doing. ["No, no!"] Well, we shall have to discuss that more fully in connection with Section 2. What is the history of the whole of the trades unions' decisions? The history of the whole of the trades unions' decisions was that trades unionism was looked upon as an illegal conspiracy. It was regarded as an illegal conspiracy for half-a-dozen men to agree not to work for certain wages. That was the doctrine for years, until an Act of Parliament put an end to it. That doctrine is revived under Clause 2, and being under that clause an offence, it is subject to inquiry under this 1st clause, and I contend that under this doctrine of conspiracy every matter that relates to a man's social and domestic life may be inquired into. If this clause were acted upon in Ireland it would make life absolutely intolerable. You can have no restriction whatever on the magistrate on what he might surmise to be conspiracy with reference to land, or with reference to a man's ordinary trade or business occupation. I hope the Government will make some limitation in this clause, or, at all events, that they will not include in it this vague, loose law of conspiracy.

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

I do not intend to go into the question of conspiracy as the right hon. Gentleman has done. I think, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been more appropriate on the 2nd clause. I can only say that the instances given by him and by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool would not constitute an illegal act, and I do not think there is a single lawyer in the Committee who will disagree with mo in that opinion. I would make a suggestion to the Committee. The Amendment we are now considering in common with a good many other Amendments, and notably that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, though they differ in many respects, all agree in this fundamental fact, that they restrict the operation of this clause to certain offences—only to those offences dealt with in the Bill and in the speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Member for York (Mr. Lock-wood) delivered in moving his Amendment. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been perfectly applicable to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not have been less applicable to the Amendments of other hon. Members opposite. It would shorten the debate considerably, and it would be much more convenient to hon. Members if we could take this discussion upon one Amendment to be selected by the hon. Gentleman opposite. We, on our part, feel bound to resist every Amendment which refuses inquiry into an offence punishable under this Act. That is the principle we laid down at the outset, and if hon. Members will select which Amendment they will fight that principle upon, it will, I say, be convenient to the Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I, for my part, should be glad to do anything that would tend to shorten the proceedings; but it is obvious that there are a good many subjects between the crimes mentioned in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York and the clause of the Government.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If the Committee would consent to divide upon this Amendment, and then debate the principle of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), I should think that everyone would be satisfied.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I interpret the right hon. Gentleman's proposal in such a way as to make it a just one. I think it undesirable that an Amendment of such enormous importance as that moved by my hon. and learned Friend should be discussed at this hour of the night, when not only we on these Benches, but Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, are exhausted after many hours of discussion, and after many hours of an attention to this clause, which, I must say, speaking for myself, was as severe an intellectual trial as one could possibly go through. At the same time, I think the right hon. Gentleman is reasonable in asking that we should not discuss the same principle on different Amendments. I think the fair way to get out of the difficulty is this— let us now report Progress; I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York will have no desire to repeat on this Amendment any of the considerations which have been used in the speeches that have already been made. Thus, by the time the Bill came on again, we might find an opportunity of comparing the different Amendments on this clause, and of weeding out those which cover the same ground. I think my hon. Friends around mo would have no desire to have more than one discussion—that discussion being a serious one on the central principle as to whether this clause should be confined in its operation to serious and grave crime, or whether it should be extended to what we call offences and combinations. I respectfully submit to the First Lord of the Treasury that this course which I suggest would be the proper one. On our part, I think we should have no difficulty in giving an undertaking that we shall take the discussion on one Amendment. I think we should be allowed between this and the next discussion to select the ground we would take up, and the Government, I am sure, would lose nothing by the delay.

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

I am glad to recognize the desire that appears to exist in the Committee on both sides of the House to limit the discussion of this important question; but it would appear to mo to be possible to come to a decision on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York this evening. We have all had the benefit of hearing the able arguments upon this particular Amendment which have come from the other side, and if we now divide upon it I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool might very well be acted upon. We might put in some of the Amendments which follow in the name of the Attorney General, and which, I believe, will be accepted by the Committee without opposition. We should then arrive at the point at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby could move his Amendment, if that is the one upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite rely, and that Amendment could be discussed at the next sitting of the Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think that a very reasonable proposal, and it would probably now be convenient for the Committee to take a Division on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York. That Division will probably decide that the clause shall not be limited to these particular offences. Well, we should endeavour after that to, what I may call, consolidate the Amendments in order to put the question in to as short and as simple a form as possible.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) to say that after disposing of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, we should proceed to dispose of the Amendments in the name of the Attorney General? The Amendment which stands in my name would merely limit the question of time. If that were disposed of, whether it were adopted or negatived, it would be open to the Committee to discuss further words limiting the clause to certain offences. What I believe would be the best course to pursue would be to dispose of this Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, to take the decision of the Committee upon my Amendment, and to leave the Committee free for the discussion as to whether there should be any further limitation of this clause or not.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I understand that it is proposed that we should take a Division upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, that we should then put in for discussion the Attorney General's Amendments, and that we should then report Progress, and consider what should be done in the future.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I think we all mean the same thing, so that we can discuss this matter with perfect equanimity on both sides. I do not object to the Division being taken on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Lockwood); but I think there is some difficulty in disposing of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. I am not a lawyer; but I must say that it appears to me, from reading the Amendment, that it was prejudicing the question which we wish to hold over. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would lose nothing by consenting to report Progress after the Division about to be taken.

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

I think it is desirable to got rid of the Amendments which are merely formal and do not raise discussion; it would save time. May I point out to hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has put his Amendment into the shape of a Proviso. He says— Provided that no examination under this section shall he held in respect of any matters relating to public meetings, or transactions relating to the letting, hiring, or occupation of land, or the dealing with, working for, or hiring of any persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation. It seems to mo that this is open to any hon. Member who desires to limit the operation of the clause, after we have disposed of Amendment 115 and my Amendment, to move any further Amendment in the shape of a Proviso in regard to the operation of the clause.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to insist on getting further in the debate tonight. It appears to mo the Amendment of the Attorney General places a totally distinct issue before us. There are two issues to be decided—the first is what class of offences committed before the passing of this Act shall be included in this clause; and, secondly, what class of offences committed after the passing of this Act shall be included. The Amendment of the Attorney General is in these words— Clause 1, page 2, line 12, attend, add—' committed in a proclaimed district, whether committed before or after the passing of this Act, provided that no inquiry should be hold under this section concerning any offence punishable under this Act commenced in any district before the proclamation of such district, unless such offence would have been indictable if this Act had not passed.' If we pass this Amendment the Act will apply to all offences committed after the passing of the Act save those stated in the Amendment. That is the contentious matter. We have on the Paper, Amendments limiting the scope of the Act in a different direction to that indicated in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We should desire to discuss the question raised by this Amendment, and I would, therefore, ask the Government not to press on that discussion tonight. I need not point out what these Amendments are; I think there is one in. my own name, but, be they few or many, they certainly raise contentious matter. They are not in any way involved in the Amendment now before the Committee, and I would therefore ask that they also should be postponed until Tuesday.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Perhaps this would meet the view of the Government. I think we, on these Benches, could undertake, that on Tuesday we will do all in our power to assist the Government to get to the discussion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby at the earliest hour possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General therefore need have no apprehension that, if he allows his Amendment to be put off, anything but the briefest time would be occupied in its consideration.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Agreed.

MR. MILVAIN (Durham)

I feel somewhat surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that we ought to be most careful as to the hands into which we entrust the Law of Conspiracy. I am also surprised that he has quoted the Act in which the Law of Conspiracy is taken out of the hands of the Court of Quarter Sessions. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the Act of the 38th & 39th Vict., regarding conspiracy in restraint of trade, gives a Court of Summary Jurisdiction power to deal with such conspiracies. [Interruption.]

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 257; Noes 170: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 140.)

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, at end, add "committed in a proclaimed district, whether committed be-fore or after the passing of this Act, provided that no inquiry shall be held under this section concerning any offence punishable under this Act committed in any district before the proclamation of such district, unless such offence would have been indictable if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

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

Mr. Courtney, I beg to move that you do now report Progress.

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

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

I suppose it will be competent to move an Amendment to this Amendment, pro- viding that the offence must be committed since the dropping of the Crimes Act?

THE CHAIRMAN

The words, being additional, can, of course, be amended.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.