SUMMARY JURISDICTION.

HC Deb 23 May 1887 vol 315 cc907-1025

Clause 2 (Extension of summary jurisdiction).

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

It may be for the convenience of the House if I were to state the views of the Government with reference to the remaining Amendments to be considered by the Committee to this clause. The Government are anxious that their views should be known to the Committee, with the object of advancing Public Business as far as it is possible to do so. Therefore, we have carefully considered the Amendments on the Paper, so far as they involve any question of principle. If hon. Members will look at the Amendments they will see that from the Amendment numbered 60 down to No. 69 all the Amendments upon the Paper refer either to questions which have been already adequately discussed and virtually decided upon Clause 1, or the earlier sections of this clause, or are Amendments which have no very substantial character. In saying this, I have no wish to speak with any disrespect of any hon. Members whose names are attached to them; but I simply draw attention to the fact that the Amendments No. 60 to No. 69, inclusive, involve no principle which has not been dealt with by the House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] At all events, that is the opinion of the Government, and hon. Gentlemen, as I understood, wished to know the view which the Government take of the questions which are still to be discussed in Committee. The Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 appear to me to refer to questions which deserve some consideration, and if the hon. Members in charge of those Amendments desire that the opinion of the Committee should be taken upon them no objection can be raised. The Amendments from 72 to 84, again, are not of a very serious character. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen, I understand, had no desire to provoke unnecessary opposition on their part, and we desire to give full consideration to every Amendment which raises a question of principle. The Amendment numbered 85, on the other hand, does involve a principle. The right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) proposes to leave out the words "unlawful assembly," and obviously that is a very proper matter to submit to the consideration of the Committee. There is also another question raised by the hon. Member for South Cork (Dr. Kenny), to leave out that part of the sub-section which relates to "wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of a house or land." The Government propose, at present, to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), No. 105, for the omission of Sub-section 4, which relates to offences under the Whiteboy Acts. We consider that it may be right to specify the offences included in the Whiteboy Acts, which we desire to bring under the operation of this Bill, rather than to include them by a reference to the Whiteboy Acts generally. That is a question which is now under the consideration of the Government, and therefore in withdrawing the sub-section at the present time we reserve to ourselves full right and power to reconsider it on the Report if it should appear desirable to do so; either to include offences in the Whiteboy Acts generally, or, as we wish to be able to do, to specify the particular offences in the Whiteboy Acts which will come under the operation of this Bill. After the Amendment 105, there is nothing of consequence until we come to 110, which is also an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney, and it is obviously a question which may fairly be considered by the Committee. Then the Amendment numbered 112, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), is also of some importance. But when those Amendments are disposed of there is nothing of importance until we come to 114, in the name of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), which may, perhaps, receive some consideration. I refer to these Amendments with a view of assisting the Committee to arrive at an early decision on the clause itself. They are the only Amendments which raise any question of principle, and I venture to hope that we can be allowed to get the clause passed this evening after the very long consideration which has been given to the early parts of it.

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

The Whiteboy Acts are of an extremely long, vague, and involved character; and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to have the matter discussed on the Report stage with the Speaker in the Chair, or whether he proposes to recommit the Bill with respect to this subject? I must say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory.

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

We in no case propose to embody the Whiteboy Acts in the Bill. What the Government reserve to themselves a right to do is to enumerate the offences not already in the Bill, but to embody them from the Whiteboy Acts.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Is it intended to consider this enumeration with the Speaker in the Chair or with the Bill in Committee?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

With the Speaker in the Chair, I apprehend, on the Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Then, in that case, I shall raise the entire question on the Motion to omit the sub-section.

MR. MARUM (Kilkenny, N.)

I have now to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "Law" insert— Provided also, That, for the purposes of this section, every offence of criminal conspiracy shall be deemed to be 'a case of difficulty' within the meaning of the inhibiting proviso of the Commissions of the Peace of Justices, and in that regard the chairman of the county shall be deemed to be as of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law. The object of this Proviso is to secure that criminal conspiracy cases which, I believe, will be very infrequent, should go before a Judge of a Superior Court to be tried in Dublin in accordance with ancient precedent, and not by a Resident Magistrate. The inhibiting Proviso of the Commissions of the Peace of Justices forms the subject-matter of the Amendment, and defines the mode of procedure in regard to important trials—such as treason, murder, and criminal conspiracy. It states that such cases shall be heard before two or more magistrates, but that no judgment shall be given except in the presence of one of the Judges, or by a counsel learned in the law. The Commission provides all through that if cases of this kind are brought before the ordinary Justices, such Justices shall not act upon them except in the presence of some person learned in the law. Am I to be told that conspiracies of such a serious character involving political matters—such as "the Queen v. O'Connell," or "the Queensv. Parnell," or "the Queen v. Dillon," each of which was tried in a Superior Court, are not very serious offences and worthy of being considered by a Superior Court. That is the object of my Amendment, and my contention is, that if you allow Boycotting and the lower class of offences to be tried under the summary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates, the more serious offences shall not be tried by summary jurisdiction. I should like to know whether any hon. Member, knowing that a Resident Magistrate possesses his authority by virtue of a Commission which contains words ordering them not to act in cases of difficulty, can have the hardihood to say that conspiracy and matters concerning criminal conspiracy are not cases of great difficulty? In the Statute referred to in the Amendment the expression used is "conspiracy now punishable by law," and formerly "the law" dated from the first day of the Session in which a particular Act of Parliament was passed; but by an Act passed in the 33rd of Geo. III. there is a direction to the Clerk of Parliament to insert the exact date on which an Act passed. When this Bill passes and becomes an Act, the Act itself will date from the period put down in that way by the Clerk of Parliament, and it may be argued that the words "now punishable by law" refers to the entire Act, and will include within them not merely conspiracies according to Common Law, but conspiracies under the Act itself, so that intimidation will be governed by the Definition Clause which includes intimidation—what may be called technical and constructive intimidation. In other words, a man may be brought under the summary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate in regard to matters which amount to nothing beyond a civil inquiry. Take the case of a temperance meeting. A licensed victualler might suffer injury by the adoption of temperance principles, and he might summon the persons who held a temperance meeting before a Resident Magistrate, declaring that he was intimidated, and the word "intimidation" would cover everything calculated to put him in fear, so far as his trade or business was concerned, and in that way the case might be held to amount to an offence against the law and to a criminal conspiracy. I give that as an illustration to show the nature of "a case of difficulty" which the Resident Magistrate might be called upon to determine as being a case of criminal conspiracy or not. Take the case of the land which, under the clauses of this Bill, will be a fruitful subject for putting the law in motion. The question will arise in this way. A combination of two or more tenants not to pay more than a certain amount of rent upon a particular farm will be held to be a conspiracy, and no doubt it would be provided the tenant occupying the land took no part in it. If he were included it would be illegal, and would amount to a criminal conspiracy. I only mention this to show the kind of cases which will come before the Resident Magistrates, none of whom are bound to belong to the Legal Profession. Questions of the utmost nicety will have to be dealt with. Let me take a very ordinary case. In the latter part of the clause it is made a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the administration of the law. In the case of "the Queen v. O'Connell," one of the counts of the indictment charged O'Connell with attempting to supersede the Courts of Law. No doubt, that was an indictable offence; no doubt it was conspiracy; but, at the same time, allow me to quote three or four lines from the judgment delivered on that occasion to show the great delicacy and difficulty of the matters which these Resident Magistrates may have to determine. The learned Judge—Lord Denman—dealing with the eight counts of the case of "the Queen v. O'Connell" said— I am by no means clear that there is anything illegal in exciting disapprobation of a Court of Law, for the purpose of having other Courts substituted more cheap, efficient, and satisfactory. Another learned Judge said— I have entertained some doubt whether the eight counts show more than one thing—namely, a desire to prove the inefficiency of certain tribunals, and to point out that others more efficient may be substituted for them by the Legislature. That is a very nice question of law, and yet it is one which may come before a Resident Magistrate for decision, as well as other questions which are at present tried before the puisne Judges and at bar in Ireland. Questions which now engage the attention of special juries may be dealt with in the same way, and am I to be told that the summary jurisdiction of two Resident Magistrates is quite sufficient to deal with them, especially when such delicate issues as are involved in charges of conspiracy and other serious offences are at stake. In a multiplicity of matters which may arise under this clause, I contend it is absolutely essential that they should be dealt with by the Judges of the Superior Courts. The proposal of the Government is to enlarge enormously the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates, and there can be no doubt that, under the provisions of this Bill, cases of conspiracy must frequently arise which would be well worth the presence of the Judges of the Superior Courts, in accordance with the ancient traditions of the law. That is the object of my Amendment, and it coincides with the results of my own personal experience. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it is not my intention to say anything disrespectful of, or offensive to, the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. I have been associated with them for many years, and it would ill become me to say a word against them; but I speak with knowledge when I assure the Committee that it will be necessary to act with extreme caution in entrusting them with such extreme powers in delicate and difficult cases. In 1883, when the Crimes Prevention Act was in operation, there was a case in which a clergyman was summoned to give bail for his good behaviour before the Petty Sessions. I was in the habit of attending as a magistrate. When I reached the Court I found two Resident Magistrates there, one of whom I had never seen before. The regular Resident Magistrate did not attend. It was proved by a policeman that the defendant had issued a "No-rent manifesto" in the case of certain tenants of Lord Castletown. The rev. gentleman, who was not defended by counsel, denied the charge made against him, and proposed to give evidence himself either by affidavit or orally- I stated to those Resident Magistrates my own opinion—which was afterwards justified in the case of "the Queen v. Dillon"—that that evidence ought to be received; but those two gentlemen would not accept my view of the law, and they absolutely refused to receive it, although the summons was in the form of requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be bound over to be of good behaviour. They refused to hear him either orally or by counsel. I said I thought it was desirable that the rev. gentleman should be allowed to come forward and say that he repudiated the offence with which he was charged; but the Resident Magistrates ruled against me, and decided that the rev. gentleman should enter into bail to the extent of £500 for his good behaviour, or go to prison for six months. The rev. gentleman objected to enter into any bail at all, and I proposed to give him some time for consideration. Since then, the ruling in the case of "the Queen v. Dillon" has shown that I was right even in requesting that he should have time to deliberate whether he would give bail or not. That, however, was also refused by the Resident Magistrates, and the rev. gentleman was sent to the common gaol. The town was filled with military at the time, a side car was procured, and I saw this rev. gentleman placed upon it, and alongside of him was one of the Resident Magistrates, who, acting in a judicial capacity, had ruled as I have stated. He was taken 14 miles through the country in the custody of that magistrate, who, notwithstanding the fact that he had just been acting in a judicial capacity, was now acting in an executive capacity. I believe the right hon. and learned Attorney General (Mr. Holmes) has told us that the Government desire to sever the judicial from the executive capacity. I think that is a most desirable thing; but the circumstance I have mentioned actually occurred, and side by side on this car was the Resident Magistrate with a revolver slung around him, and policemen on either side, and in that fashion this rev. gentleman was carried 14 miles across the country to a common gaol. I saw the whole circumstance with extreme pain, and I sympathized very much with the magistrate who found himself placed in that painful position. It is not against the act of that gentleman that I protest, but against the system which requires him to perform such an odious duty. I have only mentioned the circumstance, in order to show how it has been the case in the past—that a person performing an important function has been required subsequently to act in an executive capacity—almost in the capacity of a gaoler in reference to a man whom he had previously tried and sentenced. I trust the Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment.

Amendment proposed. In page 2, line 22, after "Law," insert "Provided also, That, for the purposes of this section, every offence of criminal conspiracy shall be deemed to be 'a case of difficulty' within the meaning of the inhibiting proviso of the Commission of Peace of Justices, and in that regard the chairman of the county shall be deemed to be as of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law."—(Mr. Marum.)

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

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

There has been no subject in connection with the Bill which has been more fully discussed than the question whether Resident Magistrates should be entrusted with the jurisdiction given them by the 1st sub-section of the 2nd clause. A few days ago, the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) moved an Amend- ment to provide that these questions should be referred to a special tribunal of Judges. That Amendment was discussed at considerable length, and was ultimately withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) pointed out, upon that occasion, that the same question would arise at a subsequent and more appropriate stage, and that view was conceded by the Committee. Therefore, under the circumstances, the hon. and learned Gentleman must excuse me from following him through his argument. I will simply point out to the Committee that it is impossible to accept this Amendment. I am quite sure that no lawyer would be able to understand it. The Commission of the Peace stands now, I believe, in the form in which it has stood for some 400 or 500 years. It gives power to the magistrates to deal generally with every sort of crime. I need only call attention to the fact that the magistrates have simply summary jurisdiction expressly given to them, and no outside jurisdiction whatever. If the Amendment were accepted, where are you to get your Queen's Counsel, or your County Court Judge, or your barrister learned in the law? The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member is not a practical one at all, and the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one which will be more appropriately met at a later stage of the Bill. I therefore trust that the hon. and learned Member will not press the Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is reasonable in the request he now makes for the postponement of the general discussion, inasmuch as the Government have made no concession whatever with respect to the tribunal when it comes on for discussion at a later stage. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were prepared to make some concession of that kind, his appeal would come with great weight; but in the absence of some engagement or promise of that kind, I hardly think the request the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes to us is reasonable. In discussing the Amendment, we are bound to assume that the rest of the Bill will remain in the position in which it now stands; otherwise, we should never know where we were exactly. If the Government will give us a promise that they are prepared to make a concession on this particular point, no doubt that would modify our opposition. Otherwise, we must take the Bill as it stands, and we must now discuss the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Kilkenny on the assumption that the Government do not intend to make any concession on the question at all. That being so, I think the right hon. and learned Attorney General was called on to give some better reply to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment than he has done. As I have already pointed out, he has contented himself by refusing to discuss the Amendment. Now, it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is one of a most reasonable character. The right hon. and learned Attorney General sneered at that remark, and he has taken exception to the document from which the Amendment is taken—namely, the Commission of the Peace issued to magistrates, on the ground that that Commission is of a venerable character. He should have remembered that this is not the first time the Executive of Ireland have referred to enactments of a venerable character to enable them to carry on the government of Ireland. In one case the Executive of Ireland found itself compelled to go back to an enactment of the Reign of Edward III., and that being so, surely we are justified in taking up this old Statute which regulates the jurisdiction of the magistrates, providing that we can find anything in it which is calculated to mitigate the ferocity of this Bill. On the question of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend I will only say this, that I cannot imagine a more dangerous precedent than that which is stated in this Bill, in handing over to any Court of Summary Jurisdiction the power of dealing with questions of criminal conspiracy. It is the first time—as far as I know—that Parliament has ever placed in the hands of the Resident Magistrates a summary jurisdiction on the question of conspiracy. We have had numerous Coercion Bills before, some of them so varied in their provisions that they were capable of being applied almost to anything. From time to time the Government have not hesitated to pass provisions to enable them to vindicate what they call law and order; but this is the first time in which the Government have handed over to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction powers of this kind to enable Resident Magistrates to deal with difficult cases of conspiracy. That being so, I think my hon. and learned Friend has acted in a very reasonable manner in suggesting that when the Government get this extraordinary and unprecedented clause, they should fence the enactment around with the protection which in ordinary cases of summary jurisdiction exercised by unprofessional persons has always been adopted hitherto. When officials of this character, who are not learned in the law, are called upon to decide difficult and delicate questions which may arise in regard to the Law of Conspiracy it should be, at any rate, incumbent upon them to seek the advice of the ordinary legal tribunals of the country, or to have associated with them some competent person learned in the law. I certainly think that my hon. and learned Friend was entitled to some better reply than that which he has received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Let us consider what the various difficulties are which may possibly arise under this clause. I do not intend to discuss them in detail, but in order to show the difficulty of the task the Court of Summary Jurisdiction will be required to perform under this Bill. I think the argument founded on that difficulty perfectly relevant and proper. The sub-section of this clause, which is now under discussion, practically includes offences of three kinds. First, offences arising from the letting, hiring, and selling of land; secondly, conspiring to Boycott; and thirdly, offences, described in the very vague language of the sub-section as to "interfering with the administration of the law." Let me point out to the Committee that hardly any two lawyers who have spoken on this subject—and we have had a great many legal speakers—have agreed in opinion in regard to this question of conspiracy. One of the public journals, speaking of the Plan of Campaign, pointed out that at least a dozen judgments upon similar questions have been delivered by the English Courts, all of which are of the most conflicting character, and the whole net result is to show that the law itself is in a state of doubt and uncertainty. The question, hitherto, has never been properly settled, and the difficulties which have arisen in declaring what the law really is have arisen from the fact that the English Judges have never yet come to an agreement as to what the real nature of a conspiracy is. So far as one very limited branch of the subject is concerned the law is perfectly clear—namely, that if a person conspires to commit an act which in itself is an offence, or which is intended to effect an illegal object, he is guilty of a criminal conspiracy.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member confining himself to the question raised by the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

The argument of the hon. Member is certainly wider than the special argument involved in the question.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I beg to move, "That the words down to the word 'violence,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill." be now put.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know if it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to interrupt an hon. Member in the middle of his speech for the purpose of moving the closure, or, indeed, to make any other Motion in the middle of an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

That course has already been adopted.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Yes, Sir; but an opinion was expressed that it was a most inconvenient course, and that it ought not to be followed as a matter of practice.

THE CHAIRMAN

All I can say is, that it has been followed as a matter of practice, and has been construed to be within the Rule.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Is it competent to move the closure with regard to a particular portion of a clause until the Amendment under discussion has been disposed of?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Rule runs in this way— That if a clause be then under discussion, a Motion may he made that certain words de-fined in the Motion stand part of the Clause. It is obvious, therefore, that when the clause is under consideration, there must be some previous Motion before the Com- mittee, or about to be proposed, which will be over-ridden by applying the Motion for closure.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

May I point out that the word "then" in the Rule provides that the closure shall only be applied to the particular Motion before the House. In my view, the use of the word "then" means that the closure may be applied to the Motion then before the House, and to nothing further.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is right upon that point. It is necessary to apply the closure to the special Amendment under discussion.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Then I presume I shall be in Order in resuming my speech?

MR. W. H. SMITH

(who rose amid cries of ''Order!") said: I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

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

The Committee divided:-Ayes 231; Noes 125: Majority 106. [7.40 P.M.]

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Brown, A. H.
Ainslie, W. G.	Bruce, Lord H.
Ambrose, W.	Burghley, Lord
Amherst, W. A. T.	Caine, W. S.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Caldwell, J.
	Campbell, J. A.
Anstruther, H. T.	Campbell, R. F. F.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Charrington, S.
Atkinson, H. J.	Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.
Baggallay, E.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Clarke, Sir E. G.
Baird, J. G. A.	Coddington, W.
Barclay, J. W.	Coghill, D. H.
Baring, Viscount	Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Bartley, G. C. T.	Corry, Sir J. P.
Bates, Sir E.	Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Baumann, A. A.	Cross, H. S.
Beach, W. W. B.	Crossley, Sir S. B.
Beadel, W. J.	Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Beaumont, H. F.	Cubitt, right hon. G.
Beckett, W.	Curzon, Viscount
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Dalrymple, C.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Davenport, H. T.
	De Cobain, E. S. W.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
	De Worms, Baron H.
Biddulph, M.	Dimsdale, Baron R.
Bigwood, J.	Dixon, G.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Dugdale, J. S.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Duncan, Colonel F.
Bond, G. H.	Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
Boord, T. W.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.	Eaton, H. W.
	Ebrington, Viscount
Bristowe, T. L.	Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Egerton, hon. A. J. F.
	Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Brookfield, A. M.	Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

Elliot, G. W.	Holmes, rt. hon. H.
Elton, C. I.	Hornby, W. H.
Evelyn, W. J.	Howard, J.
Ewart, W.	Hozier, J. H. C.
Eyre, Colonel H.	Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G.
Farquharson, H. R.	Hughes, Colonel E.
Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.	Hulse, E. H.
	Hunt, F. S.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Hunter, Sir G.
	Jackson, W. L.
Field, Admiral E.	Jennings, L. J.
Fielden, T.	Kelly, J. R.
Finch, G. H.	Kenyon, hon. G. T.
Finch - Hatton, hon. M. E. G.	Kerans, F. H.
	Kimber, H.
Finlay, R. B.	King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Fisher, W. H.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.
Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.
	Knowles, L.
Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.	Lafone, A.
	Lambert, C.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Laurie, Colonel R. P.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount	Lawrence, W. F.
	Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Forwood, A. B.	Lees, E.
Fraser, General C. C.	Legh, T. W.
Fry, L.	Lethbridge, Sir R.
Fulton, J. F.	Lewis, Sir C. E.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.	Llewellyn, E. H.
	Low, M.
Gedge, S.	Lowther, hon. W.
Gibson, J. G.	Mackintosh, C. F.
Giles, A.	Maclean, F. W.
Gilliat, J. S.	Maclean, J. M.
Goldsmid, Sir J.	Maclure, J. W.
Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.	Mallock, R.
	March, Earl of
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.	Marriott, right hon. W. T.
Green, Sir E.
Greene, E.	Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Grimston, Viscount	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Grove, Sir T. F.	Mildmay, F. B.
Gurdon, R. T.	Milvain, T.
Hall, A. W.	More, R. J.
Hall, C.	Morrison, W.
Halsey, T. F.	Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.
Hambro, Col. C. J. T.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Mowbray, R. G. C.
	Mulholland, H. L.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Murdoch, C. T.
Hamilton, Lord E.	Noble, W.
Hamilton, Col. C. E.	Norris, E. S.
Hanbury, R. W.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
Hankey, F. A.	Paget, Sir R. H.
Hardcastle, E.	Parker, hon. F.
Hardcastle, F.	Pearce, W.
Hartington, Marq. of	Pitt-Lewis, G.
Hastings, G. W.	Plunket, right hon. D. R.
Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
	Powell, F. S.
Heaton, J. H.	Puleston, J. H.
Heneage, right hon. E.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Herbert, hon. S.	Rasch, Major F. C.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.	Reed, H. B.
	Richardson, T.
Hill, A. S.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Hoare, S.	Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.
Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.	Robertson, J. P. B.
	Robertson, W. T.
Holloway, G.	Robinson, B.

Ross, A. H.	Vernon, hon. G. R.
Russell, T. W.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.	Waring, Colonel T.
	Webster, R. G.
Sellar, A. C.	West, Colonel W. C.
Selwyn, Capt. C. W.	Wharton, J. L.
Sidebotham, J. W.	Whitley, E.
Sinclair, W. P.	Whitmore, C. A.
Smith, rt. hon. W. H.	Wilson, Sir S.
Smith, A.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Spencer, J. E.	Wood, N.
Stanhope, rt. hon. E.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Stanley, E. J,	Wright, H. S.
Taylor, F.	Yerburgh, R. A.
Temple, Sir R.	Young, C. E. B.
Tollemache, H. J.
Tomlinson, W. E. M.	TELLERS.
Townsend, F.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Trotter, H. J.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Tyler, Sir H. W.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Haldane, R. B.
	Harrington, E.
Acland, C. T. D.	Hayden, L. P.
Allison, R. A.	Hayne, C. Seale-
Anderson, C. H.	Healy, M.
Asquith, H. H.	Healy, T. M.
Austin, J.	Hooper, J.
Barran, J.	Howell, G.
Barry, J.	Hoyle, I.
Blake, T.	Hunter, W. A.
Blane, A.	Illingworth, A.
Bradlaugh, C.	James, C. H.
Bright, Jacob	Kenny, C. S.
Broadhurst, H.	Kenny, J. E.
Brown, A. L.	Kenny, M. J.
Buxton, S. C.	Lalor, R.
Byrne, G. M.	Lawson, Sir W.
Cameron, C.	Lawson, H. L. W.
Campbell, Sir G.	Leahy, J.
Campbell, H.	Lyell, L.
Carew, J. L.	Macdonald, W. A.
Chance, P. A.	M'Cartan, M.
Channing, F. A.	M'Donald, P.
Clancy, J. J.	M'Donald, Dr. R.
Clark, Dr. G. B.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Cobb, H. P.	M'Laren, W. S. B.
Coleridge, hon. B.	Mahony, P.
Connolly, L.	Mappin, Sir F. T.
Conway, M.	Marum, E. M.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	Mason, S.
Corbet, W. J.	Molloy, B. C.
Cossham, H.	Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.
Cox, J. R.	Morgan, O. V.
Craig, J.	Morley, A.
Craven, J.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Cremer, W. R.	Nolan, J.
Dillon, J.	O'Brien, P.
Dillwyn, L. L.	O'Brien, P. J.
Dodds, J.	O'Connor, A.
Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.	O'Connor, J. (Kerry)
Esslemont, P.	O'Connor, T. P.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	O'Hea, P.
Flower, C.	O'Kelly, J.
Flynn, J. C.	Paulton, J. M.
Foley, P. J.	Pickard, B.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Gane, J. L.	Picton, J. A.
Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-	Power, R.
Gilhooly, J	Priestley, B.
Gill, T. P,	Pyne, J. D.

Quinn, T.	Summers, W.
Redmond, W. H. K.	Tanner, C. K.
Reid, R. T.	Tuite, J.
Roberts, J.	Waddy, S. D.
Rowlands, J.	Wallace, R.
Rowlands, W. B.	Warmington, C. M.
Rowntree, J.	Wayman, T.
Russell, E. R.	Will, J. S.
Schwann, C. E.	Wilson, C. H.
Sexton, T.	Wilson, H. J.
Smith, S.	Yeo, F. A.
Spencer, hon. C. R.
Stack, J.	TELLERS.
Stanhope, hon. P. J.	Biggar, J. G.
Stuart, J.	Sullivan, D.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 217: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 170.) [7.55 P.M.]

MR. W. H. SMITH

I claim now to move that the Question, "That the words 'any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or,' stand part of the Clause, be now put."

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask the Government whether a number of Gentlemen who have paired did not vote in the last Division?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Is it not a breach of the practice of this House for a number of Gentlemen who have paired to vote in a Division?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not a question upon which I can rule.

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 122: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 171.) [8.15 P.M.]

Question put, "That the words 'any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 116: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 172.) [8.30 P.M.]

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The Amendment which I rise to move is to substitute the word "threats" for the word "intimidation" which is now in the clause, and which is very vague in its meaning. I am of opinion that the Resident Magistrates may be inclined to give the word a meaning which it might not be intended to bear, and that, therefore, it may be used as an instru- ment of great tyranny and oppression. It seems to me that if the Government accept this Amendment, that the words "violence" and "threats" will be sufficient for bringing to bear upon the offences specified the penalties of this Bill, and that the offence which is popularly known as intimidation is one which ought not to be admitted into an Act of Parliament under that vague designation. Suppose a man takes an animal to a fair for the purpose of selling it, and suppose the people at the fair do not fancy the animal he has for sale, of course, whatever may be the defects of the animal he is offering, he may go to the Resident Magistrate and allege that he has not been able to sell his animal, and that, although no actual threats have been used to him, he believes there is intimidation in the air. I do not think that when a man makes a complaint of that kind, and is not able to show some substantial grievance—namely, that violence or threats have been used towards him, any Resident Magistrate should have it in his power to imprison a person or persons upon such an allegation. And I want the Government, if they intend that intimidation is to cover something beyond violence or threats, to tell us what other act is to be included under this term. Let them tell us what they have in view, and what is the mischief at which they wish to strike. If there is any definition in any Act of Parliament which describes what it is the Government intend to reach by this clause, let them put it into the Bill; but I do urge upon them not to place such enormous power in the hands of the Resident Magistrates by the use of so vague a term as "intimidation," which, as I have said, may be applied by them in a very improper manner. I will instance two cases which happened under the recent Coercion Act. At the time when the Act generally associated with the name of the late Mr. Forster was in force, a number of tenants were evicted; the Land League, which was then in existence, erected some huts on the roadside for the use of these persons, and for that purpose they sent down a common carpenter from Dublin. This man was not a politician; he knew nothing about the state of affairs, and was simply employed as an ordinary artizan to do the work. But what did Mr. Clifford Loyd do? He argued that the huts might in some way be used to intimidate the landlord; he arrested the carpenter who was doing the work, put him into gaol, and the man was bound over to be of good behaviour. Now, it is against acts of this kind that we wish to provide in seeking to have this Amendment put into the Bill. It seems to me monstrous that this constructive intimidation should be imported into the legal process in Ireland. We say that if the Executive can find any actual violence or threats, let those acts be punished; but we say, also, that acts of constructive intimidation ought not to be struck at. I will now refer to another case, which occurred, I think, in the County of Limerick. In this instance, a policeman summoned a boy who, he said, had whistled at him as he was passing along the street; he alleged that this little boy had intimidated him—that he was whistling at him in derision. I do not know what the result of this case was. I think a good deal of fun was made of it at the time, and I only use it as a specimen of the manner in which we may expect that an Act of Parliament of this kind will be used, if we import into it words which, although they may have a meaning in the dictionary, have no legal meaning.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, after "or," leave out "intimidation," and insert "threats."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

The hon. Gentleman either asks us to limit the operation of this clause by the words he proposes, or he does not. If, in his opinion, the terms "threats" and "intimidation" are synonymous, his Amendment is frivolous. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 19, he will see that the expression "intimidation" includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of property, business, employment, or means of living. Now, the hon. Gentleman has not told us which of the clauses of that definition he objects to, and which he thinks would be struck out by substituting "threats" for "intimidation," for the Government are of opinion that there is not one of the acts or objects specified in that definition that we can afford to part with from this Bill. We cannot afford to restrict by one iota the words of the clause, and the hon. Member will, therefore, understand that it is impossible for us to accept his Amendment.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

On the return to this House of my late Friend, Mr. Miall, there was, during his candidature, a good deal of exclusive dealing. I want to know whether, if exclusive dealing occurred in Ireland, it would bring the unfortunate person who was the cause of it within the meshes of this Bill?

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

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to suppose that we on these Benches do not know the meaning of words. He says that the definition of intimidation is in this Bill. Now, I say there is nothing of the kind. He refers us to the Definition Clause, and he says this is the definition of intimidation— The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of property, and so on. "The expression 'intimidation' includes"—exactly; but where is the definition? It includes, you say, certain things; but what does it exclude? It may mean anything in addition to what it includes. This is no definition at all; but the Government who bring in the Bill call it a definition—because you say that a gallon of water includes a glass; that is a definition of what a glass or gallon is. Will the Government put in, instead of the word "includes," the word "means?" If they do, then they will have defined intimidation; but, until then, they tell us nothing as to the meaning of the word. I ask the Solicitor General for England if it is a definition of intimidation to say what it includes without saying what it excludes? I venture to say there is no lawyer on that Bench, unless he is a fool——

THE CHAIRMAN

I hope the hon. and learned Member will pay a little more respect to the dignity of the House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I shall observe your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out the way in which this clause has been worked. And as an instance, I will refer to a case which occurred on the 7th of October, 1883. On that day a man was charged before the magistrates with having used threatening language. The words complained of were used towards another man at an auction, and they were—"Leave it to me." The magistrate said that the man had a good character, but that, as he had used threats, he should send him to prison for seven days. That is one instance of what the definition "includes." Here is another instance of intimidation. On the 22nd December, 1882, three respectable tenant farmers were sentenced to 14 days' hard labour for stopping a hunt, the Resident Magistrate who sentenced them being himself one of the huntsmen on the occasion—that is to say, we have a number of tenant farmers who object to hunting; one of the magistrates is a member of the hunt, and he says that the gathering of these people means intimidation, and he gives them each 14 days' hard labour. Besides this, 10 respectable young men were sent to prison for not dispersing. The magistrate is described in your own list as a man without any qualification. Again, on another occasion, a number of tenant farmers and labourers protested against the Marquess of Waterford's hunt at Curraghmore; all that was established against them was that they shouted—they used no threats—and yet they were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Will anyone tell me that there is anything in this Act to warrant this? And yet it was done, and I say it will be done again under your definition "includes." We object to ''intimidation" as a word; it is not an English word, and it has no precise meaning. If you said "frightens," you would make the matter more clear: but you will not do that. You put in "intimidation," which means nothing. I say that so long as you have no definition of this word in the Bill—of words which are of that vague character that no one can understand them—so long will you leave to the Resident Magistrates an enormous amount of salvage over and above the wording of the Bill. I appeal to the Solicitor General, the Home Secretary, or the First Lord of the Treasury, to say whether the word "includes" has any value at all as a definition?

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

I challenge the Solicitor General to say that any definition of intimidation is given in the Bill. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that any act that may be complained of by any person will be sufficient to get a decision against a person charged with intimidation? The wording is, beyond expression, vague— The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, and so on. I will undertake to say that if I speak at the next election disparagingly of the person opposed to me, and in such a way as tended to the loss of his seat, I should come under this clause. You do not define anything here, and yet the right hon. Gentleman points to these vague words as a justification for refusing this Amendment. Surely the Government do not intend that this word shall be used in the same way as my hon. Friends have pointed out the word "intimidation" has been hitherto used. If the Government do not intend that, what is the use of their retaining the word? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to meet our views, either by suggesting another expression, or giving us a definition? It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has some object in retaining "intimidation," although I presume his object is not to retain it for the purpose referred to by my hon. Friend; but if he has a definite purpose, why can he not, in the interest of fair play, meet our views? We have given him the reasons why we object to the term "intimidation." We have shown, from what has happened in Ireland, how absurd this word is; we have given the case of the prosecution of a little boy of 11 or 12 years of age for having whistled a tune to intimidate the police, and which boy was kept in prison for one day at least. No doubt, the Government do not want the clause to be used in that way; but it has been so used, and I see no reason why it should not be used in this way again, considering the fact that the magistrates who so used it are still on the bench. We appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and if he does not do so, it will be difficult to believe that the object is to use the Bill for other purposes than the word "intimidation" implies.

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

I think there is a great distinction to be drawn between the two words "includes" and "means;" much more so than the Government acknowledge. I should like to know whether this section includes public meetings at which it is easy to imagine that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) and others will address their constituents, and give them advice generally? When we have this word interpreted by the Resident Magistrates, I am inclined to think that it will be very hard to escape the charge of intimidation under those circumstances. I am, also, curious to know whether it is to include aid and assistance which it may be necessary to give to evicted tenants? We know that the landlords are engaged largely in issuing notices to quit; we have heard how a certain tradesman who went down to a locality to erect huts was charged with intimidation; we have heard that the erection of huts is an act of intimidation in itself, and that if it had not been for the action of a labourer who seized the reins of the Lord lieutenant's horse in the streets of Dublin, those huts would not have been erected, and the tenants would have been to this day devoid of shelter. We think that the Resident Magistrates will consider it an act of intimidation for anyone to bring aid and assistance to tenants who have been evicted, and a person engaged in what the whole world regards as an act of charity will be subjected to the very severest punishment provided by the Bill. I remember that either the Solicitor General, or the hon. and learned Gentleman now Secretary of State for India, made an eloquent speech against the arrest of a young lady who was engaged in this work, and who was sent 14 miles by road to gaol in charge of policemen, for having brought assistance to evicted tenants. These necessary charitable acts have been and will be performed again, if not by the ladies in Ireland, by gentlemen, and I want to know whether those engaged in them will be liable to the very severe penalties provided against the offence of intimidation? I do not, of course, presume to argue this question from a legal point of view; but I am rather inclined to think that if this Act becomes law it will not be long before I and others, whom I know well, will come under its operation. I can scarcely conceive, unless this Amendment be admitted, that a man will be able to turn upon his heel in Ireland without coming under its provisions. I know the Resident Magistrates; I know the conduct of the men who are engaged in these political movements in Ireland, and I know it is impossible for them to avoid this, having regard to the interpretation that will be put on the word "intimidation" by the Resident Magistrates, and I am, therefore, anxious that there should be some clear definition of the term. I should like the word proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Mr. M. Healy) to be inserted, rather than that which we have in the clause, in order that we might know our position so far as to be able to avoid offending against the Act in the future, because, if lean possibly avoid it, I do not desire again to see the inside of one of Her Majesty's prisons.

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

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland thinks that by referring to the Definition Clause he is giving a clear idea of what the Government intend by the word "intimidation." That word has a historical existence. In O'Connell's case it was declared that the word did not import any very bad meaning; but it has since been recognized to import a harmful meaning. The Definition Clause of the Government explains the term "intimidation" as covering that which it never covered before. The extent of ground which it is now made to cover ought to have been in the mind of the draftsman of this Bill, because in the preceding Definition Clause you have a saving clause for trade unions, and that saving clause is that the crime of combination, which the Trade Unions Acts of 1871 and 1875 dealt with, is legal. That being so, in order to ascertain what the draftsman of the Bill meant to include by the word "intimidation" you must go back to the Act of 1875. The 7th section of that Act provides penalties for intimidation, for the offence of violence or otherwise; and it sets forth that every person who by intimidation endeavours to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do, any act which such person has a right to do or abstain from doing rightly or wrongly shall, on conviction, be liable to the penalties in the Act. What are the things made legal intimidation by the Act? They are—using violence to or intimidating another person, his wife, or children, or injuring his property, persistently following such other person about from place to place, or hiding any tools or clothes, interfering with him in his work, watching or besetting the house where he carries on work, or approaching such place, and the following of any such person by two or more persons in a disorderly manner in any street or road. That is the definition in the Act of 1875, and, as I mentioned before, Section 18 says that no act which is not an offence of intimidation under that Act shall be an offence of intimidation under this Bill. What is the effect of the Definition Clause if it remains in the phraseology to which we have been referred by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? It is to include any word or act calculated to put any person in fear of injury or danger to himself, or any person of his family, or person in his employment, and so on. Now, when you have extended the meaning of intimidation in such a manner as that, what will it not come to? Every form of language which the person to whom it is addressed may not like—words conveying only advice—may be considered to be intimidation. A caution or intimation that if such and such a course is followed certain results will take place—everything of this sort, however bonâ fide it may be, will be intimidation; and when we consider who are the men to administer the clause, it appears against reason to place such an elastic form of words at their disposal There was one of that body who said—"We will fight the Nationalists down to Hell; and if Hell is frozen over we will fight them on the ice." Men who are capable of using such language as that are not those to whom the interests of the Nationalists should be confided, and yet, under this Bill, you will enable them to construe as intimidation what is simply meant as advice. I ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the construction I have put upon the clause is not perfectly correct, and whether the definition of "intimidation" is not so wide that no Nationalist can reasonably be held to be safe before any Resident Magistrate? Inasmuch as we have now reached the word "intimidation," it is all important that we should have a clear definition of a term so elastic and dangerous. I ask the Solicitor General whether he is content that the interpretation of the word "intimidation" is one which has been accepted and recognized in the English Law Courts; and whether, in the present political and social circumstances of Ireland, it would be just or wise to give to the word a wider signification than it has received in England?

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

The attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has been directed to four or five very extraordinary cases of the abuse which is possible under the word "intimidation;" but the right hon. Gentleman, as well as the other Members of the Government, have remained perfectly silent. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, indeed, paid no attention to them while they were being stated, and, as soon as he could, went out of the House. It has been pointed out that this Definition Clause, which makes it in the power of any Resident Magistrate to say that any word or any act done or said to any person is intended to put him in fear is so wide that it is enough to put every man in Ireland in prison. I suggest that it is too wide, and that what the Government desire is to have it too wide. They do not want a measure only to enable them to deal out justice; they want a wide-sweeping measure which will enable them to do anything they like in the interest of the landlord class, and in the interest of those at Dublin Castle. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has pointed out that it would be impossible for almost every politician on the popular side to make his ordinary political speech if this clause is to be carried out in its present form. But that is exactly what the Government want; they want to prevent political speaking if they can. What the Government intended from the beginning, and what they intend now, is to obtain a measure of tyranny sufficient to enable them to put anybody they like in prison who objects to the maintenance of the Union. That being the case, I think there is really no use in making any further appeals to the Government to state their meaning with regard to the word "intimi- dation." It is our duty to point out, if we can, to the English people what is the meaning of this clause. If a farmer meets a man who has taken a farm from which another man had been evicted and shakes his head at him, the man may go to the Resident Magistrate and say that the man had shaken his head at him, and at the next Petty Sessions the evidence of this single person that the shaking of the head was intended to put him in fear of his life would be sufficient to enable the Resident Magistrate, who has probably got his mind made up beforehand, and is one of the landlord class, to send the farmer to prison. Again, if a person of the class which is obnoxious to the population goes to Mass, and, instead of sitting in his own place, sits among people by whom he knows he is disliked, and if the people round about him get up and walk away from him, and sit and kneel in another part of the church, that, also, will be an act of intimidation. This man will be able to go to the Resident Magistrate and say he is put in fear of his life in consequence of these people getting up and passing him in church; and I have no doubt that the Resident Magistrate will send them all to prison. [A laugh,] The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughs at this; but I say that it is an illustration of what will take place, and is not a bit more preposterous than the other eases I have given. I think some more articulate reply than laughter should come from Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, although probably they prefer that mode of answering. Our point is this—that this is about the worst clause in the Bill, knowing how it will be worked. And if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland allows the word "intimidation" to remain on the clause, he will lay himself open to the charge that he desires the state of disturbance that will result rather than a state of peace. We are here to-night charging the Government with having that design and intention, and of course, if they carry out that intention by refusing this Amendment, the charge we make will be amply justified.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

It strikes me that the Government are not pursuing a very conciliatory course in this matter. If their intention is that the word "intimidation" should mean the same as "frightening" I think they ought to give way and accept the Amendment. It is very unsatisfactory, while an important question of this kind is being discussed, to see the Government represented by only two Law Officers and four of their supporters. It is rather a strange thing that these six individuals should be able to keep in a Bill words to which the whole Irish nation are opposed. I think, at any rate, that the Government should give way on this point. I have had some experience at ordinary Petty Sessions; and although hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench may not have a very large respect for those Courts, I say you are going to give them immense powers under this Bill. Now there is a class of cases, originating at fairs, which come continually before the Petty Session Courts, and up to the last five or six years the practice has been to bind the parties over to keep the peace; but now you are going to give the magistrates power to pass a sentence of six months' imprisonment. These matters will be judged in the same way as before—that is to say, the magistrates will take very little evidence. The manner of conducting business at fairs is not well understood by those who are not familiar with it. It is quite a common thing to see persons at a fair who look as if they were going to kill one another, and yet it is only their fashion of making a bargain. Under these circumstances, I think the Government ought to make a distinction with regard to the old rules under which the magistrates have been accustomed to bind people over to keep the peace. As my hon. Friend has said, the word "intimidation" is too elastic in itself, and, beyond that, it has been used in a very elastic manner; but you are now going to make such persons as I have referred to liable to six months' imprisonment. I wish there was something in this Bill to make the Law Officers of the Crown attend at Potty Sessions. I believe they have very little idea of what goes on there, and I have no doubt they suppose that the Courts are conducted in the same manner as the Superior Courts. But that is not the case at all. I say that when you are giving this tremendous power you should provide the magistrate with something definite and specific to go upon, and I believe that the adoption of the word "threats," which my hon. Friend proposes to substitute for "intimidation," will save the Law Officers of the Crown a great deal of trouble in reviewing cases which will be dealt with under this Act. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, although, having regard to the fact that they have done so little to meet the wishes of the Irish people, I have no great expectation of their doing so. It is not difficult to see why the Government refuse to accept any Amendment we propose; all they want is to have a red rag to flourish before the country during the Recess. They will say to the people of England—"We have made no concession to public opinion in Ireland; we have closured their Representatives four or five times a day; and we hope you will approve of what we have done." So far as the Representatives of the Irish are concerned, the feelings of those who send them to this House could not be treated with less consideration if we were ruled over by one of the Roman Emperors.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment says that the word "threats" is equivalent to the word "intimidation," and that as the Irish Members prefer the former the Government ought to substitute it for the latter. That, however, would seem to be a suggestion that the Government should hand over their Bill to be redrafted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, a suggestion which, of course, the Government cannot accept. The hon. and gallant Member for North Gal-way (Colonel Nolan) has remarked upon the small attendance during this discussion. I do not wonder that there are but a few Members in the House, because since the last Division the time of the House has been occupied by a series of irrelevant questions. Five hon. Members have put questions to the Government. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has asked whether this Act would have applied to certain persons who misbehaved themselves at Parliamentary elections? The hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) asks whether intimidation includes the case of a boy who whistles at a policeman? The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) calls on me to say whether I think it right that the administration of the Act should be left in the hands of a gentleman who is alleged to have used some very strong language with reference to the Nationalists. But I would point out that hon. Members who have asked these questions have all left the House without waiting for any answer to be given, and that the questions are not such as lead in the slightest degree to the elucidation of the question before the Committee. With regard to the Amendment, I have only to repeat what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, that if this Amendment is intended in any way to limit the meaning of the word "intimidation" the Government could not accept it.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Members on these Benches have not waited for replies to their questions; but I point out that this is the result of our having fallen into the habit of not expecting to get any answers from the Government. What we complain of is that the definition "includes" is no definition at all; that it simply stretches the meaning of the word without telling us what it does mean, and that the additional meaning given in the Definition Clause is of such a character that it leaves the Government open to punish anybody in Ireland—everyone who differs from the Government will probably fall under one or the other of the meanings given. It seems to us that a man who has built a house for you, which falls down afterwards, could be brought under this Bill. I contend that this clause, as now worded, places the liberty of every man in Ireland in the hands of the Executive, and that the only security we get is the assurance that the clause will be used with discretion; and we know by that that it will be used for political purposes. If a man goes into a shop and buys something, and tells a friend that what he bought there is bad, that will bring him under the clause; but, as I have said, by its means the Government will be able to punish every man in Ireland. We have endeavoured to argue this matter with the Government, but the only reply we have received is that the Government like the word "intimida- tion," and that if they were to substitute the word "threats" it would mean the handing over of the Bill to be redrafted by Members on these Benches. That means nothing more than that they will stick to everything in the Bill. I want to point out to the Committee the gross and unjust way in which the people of Ireland are treated in this matter. I have always maintained that where there is a free Parliament, and the people are able to govern their own affairs, intimidation of the kind you are aiming at has existed, and always will exist, whenever the people have before it questions of interest. I maintain there never was a Bill of such a character as this driven through Committee so indecently by any Government; and if the promoters of this Bill are met with prolonged and angry opposition, it is entirely due to the heartless and unfeeling way in which they force these provisions through the House by means of an ignorant and mistaken majority. I do not believe there are 10 men. on the opposite Benches who have read the Bill from beginning to end; and, if that is so, can they wonder that we resist it on behalf of our people to the utmost of our power?

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

MR. T. P. GILL (Louth, S.)

I beg, Sir, to support the Amendment. Such a change will not involve, on the part of the Government, any sacrifice as to the scope of the powers included in the clause, if the Government really honestly mean to limit the operation of the Act to the means that are defined in the Definition Clause. Now, I find in the Definition Clause that the word "includes" occurs three times, and the word "means" seven times amongst the paragraphs. We have this example— The expression 'Lord Lieutenant' means the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or any Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being. Then, again, we have— The expression 'aggravated crime of violence against a person' means an assault which causes actual bodily harm," &c. But when we come to the expression "intimidation" we find it set down in the clause— The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, and so on. If the Government, instead of the word "includes," would put in word "means," it would be limiting the clause to the offence specially defined, and would not be leaving a wide margin for the discretion of the Resident Magistrates as to the class of offence that they may deem intimidation when they come to work this Act. As to the discretion of the Resident Magistrates in this matter, when an hon. Friend of mine awhile ago was describing certain cases—for example, the boy who was punished for whistling in the street—I saw one or two hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite scoff at it as if it were an incredulous matter. I can quite understand their scoffing at it. I can quite understand the Solicitor General for England asking whether, in the case of that boy, there was a conviction or not. I do not know what happened in the case of the boy referred to; but there is a case here in which there is a conviction—a case in which a person summoned was sentenced to find sureties in £40, and to enter into his own recognizances, or in default to go to prison for two calendar months. His name was James M'Clusky, and he was summoned before Major Traill, the Resident Magistrate, who is rather notorious, and what was his offence? Why, it was that he, on several occasions, in the public streets of Armagh, had put out his tongue in a "threatening manner" at the Sub-Inspector of Police. This James M'Clusky, by putting out his tongue, threatened and succeeded in intimidating a gentleman who had at his hand a large force of Constabulary armed with rifles and bayonets and other weapons of war. The complainant, in course of his examination, said that this man was in the habit of intimidating him in the streets in this way; and the result was, as I have stated, that the man was sentenced to go to prison for two calendar months in default of finding sureties. This was a case in which a monstrous and ridiculous charge was made against a man as a matter of intimidation, and the Resident Magistrate who sentenced this young fellow to prison for two months in this absurd way will be one of the gentlemen who will have the administration of this Bill intrusted to them. Then there is another case brought up, where the Resident Magistrate appeared to be of a more sensible and a less tyrannical frame of mind, and reprimanded the police for bringing up the defendant. It was the case of Martin Ryan, who was summoned in Westmeath for calling Patrick Welsh "a rogue, a robber, and a welsher," and for threatening to blow out his brains with a stone. That case was dismissed; but it is a matter in the discretion of the Resident Magistrates how they shall deal with these cases, and we see that it is possible for one of them, in a case so trivial that it should never have been brought before the magistrates, to sentence a man to two months' hard labour in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour. An enormous number of these cases could be brought before the Committee; but I am sure the Government would continue to treat them with the contempt they have already manifested towards those which have been mentioned in the course of this debate. This discussion has gone on for some time, and I think we may venture to appeal to any impartial witness—to yourself, Sir, for example—as to whether the statement made from this quarter of the House of the case made out for an improvement of this definition of "intimidation" is not one which well deserves the attention of the Government, or well deserves the attention of any Party in the House to whom this argument might be addressed? I think, if this discussion may be deemed by anybody to have gone on at a length which in these days of curtailment of debate is unusual, that the fault lies with the Government, who will not answer one of the statements or one of the arguments made on this side of the House, but simply get up and tell us that we are trifling with the House, or are assuming to re-draft the Bill for the benefit of the Government; and the Government merely scoff at our statements, as if they were unfounded, instead of replying, and instead of making some endeavour to carry out, by the acceptance of a reasonable Amendment such as this, their first declared intention as to the method in which they intend the Act to be administered. Sir, I would recommend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who now represents the Go- vernment (the Attorney General for Ireland) the suggestion I have made—namely, that in Clause 19 we should go so far—though no one will be able to say it is going very far—as to leave out the word "includes," so as not to leave a margin to the Resident Magistrates to take any cases such as that of a person putting out his tongue in a threatening manner, and to put in the word "means," which, goodness knows, is sufficiently wide in its construction. I would ask the Government whether they intend to use this clause and this definition of the word "intimidation," as against the action of landlords who do what the Laud Commission, through Judge M'Carthy, recently declared the landlords were in the habit of doing—namely, intimidating their tenants by means of eviction, and holding over their heads the species of terrorism that the Irish landlords are able to hold over the heads of their tenants—whether, I say, they intend to include acts of intimidation like that in the action they propose to take under this measure which they are now passing? I should like to have an answer to that question. Is it within their intention to do so, or do they only wish to bring charges of intimidation against the tenants? I would call your attention, Sir, to the fact that one of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House stated to-night he considered to be of no importance is one which is moved by an hon. Friend of mine on this Bench, and which refers to that very portion of the definition of intimidation; and I hope that when we come to this Amendment you will consider it of sufficient importance to permit a discussion to take place upon it. It opens up a question which is a most important one—namely, the question of intimidation on the part of the landlords, which is a question that has not yet come before this Committee for discussion. I maintain it is intimidation of a far more serious character than anything which is done by the people in defence of their rights.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

It is a curious thing that none of the many lawyers who obtained seats at the last General Election in the Tory interest have addressed the Committee in defence of a single word of this Bill, with the exception of hon. and learned and right hon. and learned Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench, and who are, therefore, more or less pecuniarily interested in the fate of the measure and the fate of the Government, which is bound up with it. I think it is a significant circumstance that, with so many lawyers in the House, every one of whom is burning to distinguish himself in the interests of the Government, and probably with a view to his own ultimate interest, we should not have had a single word from any of them in defence of this Bill. When people were talking very large through the country on the introduction of this measure, when they were speaking about agrarian crime in Ireland, about the atrocities of the tenantry cutting off cows' tails and so on, no doubt many of the Gentlemen to whom I refer did speak; but when we come to the details of the Bill they do not appear to take the slightest part in what is going on, except this—that they now and then come in for the purpose of intimidating us and to vote for the Motion, "That the Question be now put." It seems to me that this word "intimidation" in this clause cannot be justified even on grammatical grounds, and ought not to be retained. It seems that intimidation to be effectual requires that someone should be affected by it—that, to use a legal phrase, there should be a grantor and a grantee. You cannot be said to intimidate the world in general; you must intimidate somebody. When you look at the next few words you see that the intimidation is intimidation "of or towards," and I confess I do not know what that means. You cannot intimidate towards a person——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member, in the observations he is now making, is anticipating an Amendment lower down on the Paper in his own name.

MR. CHANCE

Well, Sir, I was simply saying this—that intimidation is an offence which requires to be absolutely complete. I do not know what was in the mind of the draftsman when he put down the words as we find them in the Bill, because lower down we see a number of acts described incompletely, and I do not see how intimidation can possibly be used in their regard. When we turn to the Definition Clause—Clause 19—I find a similar difficulty in understanding it, because I there see— The expression 'intimidation' includes any words or acts intended and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment," &c.; and I must point out that it is quite a new departure to use the word "intimidate" in that manner. If you look at the Trades Union Act of 1875 you there find intimidation dealt with. In that Act there is an offence clearly defined, but there is no question of "using intimidation towards," and so forth. And if you look at the definition of what may be reasonably termed intimidation or force—take, for instance, intimidation or an assault that may be a constructive assault—you find that an act that is to be constructively an assault must be an act giving to the person towards whom it is used reasonable ground to believe that the person using it means to apply actual force; but in this Bill there is no such limit or safeguard. Under this Bill, if any person, even the fool of the parish, chooses to say that he is put in fear by an act which is perfectly innocent, it will be a criminal offence, and I must say that is absurdly unreasonable. You should not say it is an offence unless the act done is calculated to put in fear a person of reasonable mind and of sound common sense; but I understand why the Bill is framed in its present shape. Of course, most of these acts of so-called intimidation will be alleged against Nationalists in Ireland, and it is desired on the part of the landlord class to have the widest means of alleging acts against these people which can be construed by the Resident Magistrates into acts calculated to produce fear. The whole thing is utterly unreasonable. I suppose, however, it will be passed by the usual majority, who stalk in at the beck of that living danger signal, the First Lord of the Treasury, when he desires to put the closure on. I do not see that it is any use arguing the matter, since I have no one to argue with.

DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)

I would like to point out to the Committee that it is not what the Government mean which will be taken into consideration in Ireland by the gentlemen who will have entrusted to them the administration of this measure when it becomes an Act of Parliament; but they will take into consideration what course is most acceptable to the powers that be. It is necessary that it should be impressed upon the Government that they should have this clause framed in definite language—in language as precise as that of the English law. As has been frequently pointed out, not only are the gentlemen who will administer this measure removable at pleasure, but they are always filled with gratitude, and gratitude we know, in the Parliamentary acceptation of the phrase, is a lively expectation of favours to come. These President Magistrates are always looking forward to get some fresh expression of consideration and approval from the Government; and, as persons who find themselves in that situation always do, it will be found that they go far beyond what the Government wish them to do. They will inevitably go beyond the length of their tether. Under these circumstances, I ask the Government to say what they mean by "intimidation." If they mean what we mean by the word "threats," why do not they say so at once, and accept our Amendment? This word "threats" would go much better with the previous words of the section. "Wrongfully intimidated" seems to have a contradiction in it. If you put in the word "threats," instead of "intimidation," you will facilitate the passage of the Bill, and the Resident Magistrates will find themselves with a very necessary curb put upon them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 111: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 173.) [9.50 P.M.]

MR. CHANCE

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the words "or towards." I am glad to be able to announce to the Committee on this occasion that I speak by the leave and full concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I hope, therefore, that the discussion on the Amendment will be a short one. We have already passed without discussion the most serious points. We have decided that amongst the criminals who are enumerated in this section shall be found any person who, wrongfully and without legal authority, uses violence or intimidation; and now we come to the words "to or towards." I confess it puzzles me how we can use the words "to or towards any person or persons" in reference to such an offence as intimidation. Intimidation is distinct from violence, and it is used here as something by which you produce an effect on the mind of someone. You cannot be said, therefore, to use it "towards" some one. People's minds do not reside outside them. To have intimidation you must produce an effect on the mind of some solitary individual; and, that being so, I cannot conceive what is the meaning of "intimidation towards." Intimidation is not like a shot gun, which you can fire off in the air. This is an example of the latitude which it is intended to give the Resident Magistrates—an example of the free hand you give them to enable them to put anyone they like into gaol. I hope the Government will not be unreasonable enough to insist upon the use of these words. In the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875 you used the word "intimidation;" but you did not say "intimidation towards a person," as if intimidation was a weapon hold up and brandished. Perhaps it meant that though you may not intimidate a person himself, you may do something to some member of his family and thereby intimidate him; but that does not justify the use of words which are puerile; and, therefore, I trust the Government will leave them out.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, leave out "or towards."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

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

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Act of 1875, and he points out that it differs from the wording of the clause which we are now considering. That Act is liable to be evaded. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the debates which took place in this House in 1882 he would find it there stated by hon. Gentlemen who have had considerable experience in Ireland that though the section of the Act of 1875 to which he refers was a good one, so far as it went, it did not meet the difficulty in Ireland at that time. It does not meet the difficulty which exists now. The provision of that section, which forms, to some extent, the basis of this section of the Bill we are now considering, is not sufficient to deal with every form of intimidation in Ireland which has existed since 1881, more or less extensively, down to the present time. The hon. Gentleman asks, what is the meaning of introducing these words? The meaning of introducing the words is, as I explained in the House hours ago, that intimidation might not be directed to the individual himself—-that is, that it might not be intimidation used by the person using it in the presence of the person against whom it is used—they might not be together—but it may be directed against a man through other channels, and by being directed through other channels may prevent that person from doing a great number of things which he has a legal right to do, by reason of this intimidation being brought to bear upon him. There might be discussion as to the best way of framing the clause to meet that point; but it has been considered before that the phrase we here use does meet the difficulty. It has been clearly shown that there are many cases where the condition of things would not have been reached if it had not been for the adoption of these words. Under the circumstances, the Government do not see their way to the acceptance of the hon. Member's Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

I understand that the case of the Government is a very short and simple one. They admit that "intimidation" is the production of an effect by one person upon the mind of another person, but they wish to punish intimidation, while they are unable to point out a single individual on whose mind this effect has been produced. I leave the Committee to judge of that position. I ask the Government if they have any other reason to advance for the retention of these words? If what I have stated is their admission it is a very grave one. It is that they mean that "intimidation in the air" is an illegal act, and that they wish to punish, by six months' imprisonment, people for doing acts which do not involve violence, and by which no single individual has been restricted in his action.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The next Amendment which is in my name is in line 30, after "persons," to insert "specified." The point involved in this Amendment has already, in an indirect way, formed the subject of discussion. There is the example of a number of cases in which prosecutions wore instituted under the corresponding provisions of the Crimes Act. A number of parties were charged with intimidating persons unknown, and summonses were issued making a charge of intimidation, but without specifying the persons intimidated. It is needless to point out that that is a very unsatisfactory and improper course to take. In one of these cases an appeal was taken to the County Court Judge, and the County Court Judge decided that such a summons was bad in law, and refused to confirm the conviction of the magistrates, on the ground that the persons intimidated ought to have been stated. But in another case, where a number of appeals were made to the County Court Judge, where the same course had been taken by those issuing the summonses, the County Court Judge declined to take that view, and decided that the summonses were good in law. Whether or not such a course as that is good in law, the Bill ought to be made clear and precise on the point. I do not know what the intention of the Government is; but, at any rate, the matter should be here debated and clearly decided. I may give, as a sample of the improper way in which the clause, as framed, may work, this fact. An hon. Friend of mine went down to Westmeath and made a speech there. At that time there was a great deal of agitation in the country with reference to the question of the labourers of Ireland, and the action taken under the Labourers Act by the Poor Law Guardians. A favourite allegation of the landlords was that, however anxious they themselves might be to make concessions, the tenants were not disposed to accept them. Well, my hon. Friend, in making a speech in Westmeath, discussed this view of the matter, and urged the County Authorities to treat their labourers properly, and said that if they did not take a proper view of the situation and treat their labourers as they ought to be treated, there was a danger that the force of the agitation would be turned against themselves. For using these words he was brought up before two Resident Magistrates, charged with intimidating the farmers of Westmeath, and those two magistrates sentenced him to two months' imprisonment, an imprisonment that was confirmed on appeal by the County Court Judge—an individual who had himself got at variance with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Harrington) in local politics in the County of Kerry. I think that is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and we have reason to believe that a similar state of things will arise under this Act unless precautions are taken. A clause against intimidation, general in its character, may be abused by the Resident Magistrates. Therefore, when the Government are re-enacting a provision of this sort, we have a right to ask them to insert some safeguard against an improper use of the section.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, after "persons," insert "specified."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has himself stated, in the course of his observations, what must be in the recollection of the Committee—namely, that this subject has already been discussed at considerable length. The discussion took place on one of the Amendments on Wednesday, I think, on a previous portion of the clause. An Amendment was discussed on the same basis as that on which the hon. Gentleman is now discussing this proposal.

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

It was not on the same point.

MR. HOLMES

Practically it was the same point. The very instances the hon. Member who moved the Amendment were then quoted.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But not on the same point.

MR. HOLMES

That may be; but, as I say, the same instances were used. Our object in framing the clause as it stands is a very simple one. If intimidation is charged against certain persons, or against a certain class of persons, it may be utterly impossible to have it stated on the face of the summons what the names of the persons so intimidated are. Intimidation in Ireland is constantly being directed not against a particular individual who can be named, but against several individuals—a class of individuals residing in a particular place or district; and we conceive that form of intimidation should be punished, and therefore it would be impossible to limit the clause as suggested. The hon. Member refers to action which was taken under a previous Act. It would be impossible for us to check the difficulties the hon. Member referred to, because they are not in our knowledge; but this I do know—that under the Act of 1882 proceedings were frequently taken, and taken with success, against persons who intimidated a number of individuals, none of whom could be named, or none of whom it was possible to name at the time. The Government must insist on retaining the clause as it is drawn for the reasons that we urged when the matter was discussed for three hours on Wednesday last. It is not necessary for me, neither do I intend to reiterate the arguments then used.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely mistaken the case of the previous Amendment to which he has referred; and I am surprised that, with his legal acumen, he should have attempted to debauch the Committee with his legal opinion in a sense contrary to the fact. What was the previous Amendment? Why, that you should compel the individuals intimidated to take out the summonses themselves. That is a very different thing to the point involved in this Amendment. It would be a reflection on the Chairman of Committees to suppose that he would allow a discussion to take place on an Amendment identical with one already disposed of. The object of the present Amendment is that when you take out a summons against a person for conspiracy, the person intimidated shall not be a person in the air, but a real individual. The Amendment really proceeds from the Conservative side of the House. The Conservative Party will have a great respect for Mr. Cross, now Lord Cross, especially as he is a Peer. What my hon. Friend asks for was inserted in the Act of 1875, because in that Act the persons complaining of intimidation were bound to nominate, so to speak, the individuals whose condnct they complained of. That Act said— Any person who with the view of preventing any other person from doing or abstaining from doing. [Interruption.] I do not complain. I rejoice at interruptions which we can understand, and can deal with in. fragment. If the hon. Gentleman will again favour me with his interruption I shall be delighted to deal with him. But he will not. The section of the Act I referred to goes on to say— Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, thereby showing that these persons to be intimidated must be particular persons, or their wives or children. They must be intelligible, individual persons, such as John Smith, or W. H. Smith, or anyone else. That being so, so long as you are able to deal with them as individuals of flesh and blood, it is possible for a defendant to rebut the charges. The Judges in all these actions pro and con must depend, to a large extent, upon your proofs; but if you say you are "intimidated in the air," how is it possible that you can rebut the charges? If I am charged with intimidating a spirit—I will not say the spirit of any hon. Gentleman opposite—but of a person unknown—I cannot bring up that person unknown to prove that the charge is false, or I cannot cross-examine that person in proof of my position. But if I am accused of intimidating John Smith—I will not mention anybody else, I will stick to John Smith—I could bring up John Smith, and could show whether he was a person intimidated or not. That is a material point, and I will put that case to the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who always attends intelligently to what takes place in Committee, and does not give that perfunctory attention to what has taken place which some hon. Members upon that Bench do. If you are accused of intimidating A or B, you can bring up evidence to disprove that accusation; but if you are accused of intimidating Julius Cæsar, or some person who is dead, or some person who is unknown, how is it possible for you to defend yourself? I maintain that it is in that view that this Amendment ought to be pressed. Suppose I am accused of intimidating a person unknown, how can I prove a negative? But you look about for certain classes of persons, and you say this class of individuals has been intimidated. I say, produce one specimen. You do nothing of the kind; and I do put it to the Committee whether that is a reasonable and a proper Code that is to exist for all time? I myself have intimidated people in speeches that I have made over and over again, and I am happy to say that I have brought them in that way into courses which are right. Lord Salisbury endeavours to intimidate the Conservative Members, and successfully, to go against that which they believe to be a right and just course. We say to the people of Ireland, if you grab land you are doing wrong, and certain regrettable consequences will follow. You say that is intimidating a person unknown; and, being the master of legions, you say it is wrong, and it shall be punished. I ask you again to re-clothe yourselves in your Conservative mind as it existed in Anno Domini 1875, when you had no Liberal Unionists with you, when you were purely Conservative—before, so to speak, the primrose had been crossed by the orchid. I do ask in these circumstances, if simply on the ground of defence, that you should allow us to defend ourselves. I have defended a good many men, and most of them unsuccessfully, I must confess, because most of the juries have been "rigged." It may have been my fault. I do beseech the Committee to allow us to have some opportunity of defending ourselves; but if we are to be accused of intimidating persons who are unknown, I say it will be wholly impossible to have any line of defence under the circumstances. I therefore do hope that the Government will say that the Conservative Act of 1875, which was the intelligence and the wisdom of Parliament of that day, and which is not yet out of date, shall guide them on the present occasion. And I do hope that the Government will see their way either to accept this Amendment, or to effect its object in some way more suitable to themselves.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I regret that the Attorney General is not here, as he might infuse a little common sense into the arguments from the other side of the House. If the Attorney General for Ireland had resisted the addition of this word on the ground that it was not necessary I could have understood him, though I could hardly agree with him; but when he contends that an intimidation which intimidates nobody is to be a crime and a mis- demeanour punishable with six months' imprisonment with hard labour, it is, to my mind, maintaining a very reductio ad absurdum of law. No one is injured. If anyone is injured he can be specified. No one is intimidated. If anyone is intimidated he can be named. It is intimidation in the abstract, and intimidation that intimidates nobody, no human being being injured. No human being being produced, that is what you call applying English law to Ireland. I was glad to hear, a few moments ago, that the last Amendment was passed on the ground that English law was not strong enough for Ireland, and yet previously we were told that the Government were relying on the application of English law to Ireland. This is not the law of England or of Ireland, or of any rational country at all, and I hope hon. Members will go to a Division on the Amendment.

MR. CLANCY

I rise to reply to the remarks of the Irish Attorney General. I may say, as many were not here a while ago, that some evidence was given of the working of the Intimidation Clause of the Act of 1882. We then instanced several cases of a most extraordinary character, and no answer whatever was attempted to be given to these illustrations. The illustrations which we have given have been taken from the reports in the public newspapers of Ireland, including the Tory papers of Dublin—the organs of Dublin Castle. They are perfectly impartial newspaper reports. This collection of cases has been before the Irish public for several years, and so far as I know no effective criticism has been directed against their truth or accuracy. These reports show that the most preposterous use—the most extravagant use—has been made of the Intimidation Clause of the Act of 1882, persons being prosecuted who really committed no offence at all; and now we have, for the first time, a defence suggested—namely, that these cases probably do not exist at all. If that is the only answer that can be given I am afraid it is a very insufficient one.

MR. T. P. GILL

I think this is one of the most important Amendments that has yet been moved. It touches a very vital principle in this Bill; and that the Government should sit down so quietly, and not merely refuse to accept the Amendment, but refuse to give a reason for not accepting it, and say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should include this Amendment in what he considers trivial and not worthy of attention, is, I think, a very remarkable fact, and a very striking illustration of the spirit in which the Government are regarding the attempt we are making to modify the severity of this Bill. It is a principle new to English law that a person is to be charged with a specific offence when a charge of violence or intimidation towards another person is made, and when the person alleged to be intimidated or to be injured is not to be named in the summons. The effect of the clause as it stands, and if unamended, will be that persona and prisoners charged with intimidation under this Act will be absolutely deprived of anything like a tangible defence; because if you charge a man with intimidation, and do not mention the person whom he is alleged to have intimidated, I really do not see how a man can defend himself, and the framing of the clause in this fashion through the rejection of this Amendment, at any rate, simply means that the Government deliberately undertake to strike away from the persons to be charged with intimidation under this Act their only possible and proper method of defence. I really think that this is one of the Amendments which, if this Bill is to be anything like an honest adherence to the pretensions that the Government put forward in support of their Bill, should meet with acceptance from the other side of the House. We should like to hear from any English Law Officer who is familiar with instances which are occurring every day in England, and whose mind is not demoralized with familiarity with the freedom with which Irish magistrates and Judges and Law Officers deal with the law which they have to administer in Ireland—I should like to ask one of those Gentlemen to get up and either persuade his Colleagues on the Tory Benches to accept the Amendment, or else give us good reason why he thinks this very simple, but, at the same time, very important Amendment is to be rejected without a word of explanation.

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

I quite agree with the observations of my hon. Friend, and I consider with him that this is a very important Amendment. I would go further, and would say that it would be more candid on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they object to the retention of this word "intimidation," and to be ready to substitute for it a more intelligible and less drastic word.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is speaking to an Amendment which has been disposed of.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

There is something to be said with regard to the word proposed to be inserted, which I have had occasion to say before. We have often come to turning points in these debates. Everyone fancies he sees a turning point, and I fancy I see a turning point between the punishment of bonâ fide intimidation practised on individuals, and the condemnation which may be put by Resident Magistrates on public speeches or published articles in newspapers. I do think that this is not too much to ask that persons should be specified, either the individuals or those classes that are intimidated. I base my argument in this way. I think it would be impossible for the Government to prove their case, if they do not allege that some person or class of persons were intimidated. I suppose it is only a waste of time, as usual, to try and impress these facts on the Government. To my mind the position of the Government is logically clear enough; they want, or affect to want, to punish in Ireland, not merely criminals by act, but also criminals by word—that inconvenient class of persons who may stand up on public platforms and denounce individuals to their possible hurt. I quite agree that those who direct their speeches at individuals, either to intimidate or threaten them, ought to be punished; but, at the same time, I think that the Government ought consistently with that to safeguard the right of free speech and the right of free writing in the public Press. Unless this Amendment is made, the Government, through their underlings, the Resident Magistrates, will have the right to bring up any newspaper writer or public speaker—in fact, any man who may venture to think aloud in Ireland—and to allege that he has been guilty of intimidation, while they need not specify the intimidation.

MR. JOHN MORLET (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I hope the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) will not suspect me of being intimidated by Lord Salisbury, or of having the least desire to dissent from the view the hon. Member has expressed of his sense of the importance of the insertion of the word "specify." But I hold that in the stand which the Government have, wisely or unwisely, taken—unwisely, as I think—it is not profitably taking up the time of the Committee to dwell any further upon this Amendment. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw this proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr. Courtney, I desire to submit to the Government and the Committee the reasonableness of making a slight verbal alteration in the first words of the 26th line. As the clause at present runs— Any person who shall wrongfully, and without legal authority, use violence or intimidation to, or towards any person or persons with the view to cause any person or persons either to do," &c. The alteration I suggest is that instead of the last "any" there should be inserted the word "such," so that it will read "with the view to cause such person or persons to do," &c. It may appear that that is open to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland some time ago in regard to another Amendment—namely, that it is restrictive of the clause as it is at present drafted. It is clear that the present wording of the clause is open to very serious objection. The idea of a man intimidating one person with a view to cause another person to do something or other is a little too far fetched. I dare say the Government will be prepared to adopt the Amendment; if so, I will not dwell upon it at any length. But what I want to point out is this—that at present, as the clause stands, you may have A summoned for intimidating B with the view not to cause B to do a thing, but with the view of causing C to induce D to do a thing. With a telescopic clause of this kind, it is impossible to say what a man may not be charged with in reference to the effect of his action on three or four parties of whose very existence he may not have had any more information than the man in the moon. I beg to move the substitution of the word "such" for "any."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 26, omit the first "any," and insert "such."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

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

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

I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. O'Connor) will see we cannot accept the Amendment, if he reflects that the intimidation directed against a wife to induce the husband not to do that which he has a right to do would be by this Amendment excluded from the purview of this clause.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

In that case action could be taken under the Bill against the intimidator.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Moreover, the definition of the word "intimidation" would cover the case the right hon. Gentleman puts. The word "intimidation" includes any words or acts intended or calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of property, business, employment, or means of living. I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) ought really to master his own Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

It is rather a hopeless task to move Amendment after Amendment; but I do ask the Government to consider the Amendment, No. 76, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty). I think that if they do they will see that the words my hon. Friend proposes to insert will not materially weaken the powers given by this section. All the Amendment proposes to do is, that if the act which a party has a legal right to do is an act involving the violation of a contract or honourable obligation, that then persons shall have the right of animadversion.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 27, after "have," insert "without violation of a contract or breach of honourable obligation."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

The proposed words are entirely unnecessary, and really throw doubt on the words of the clause as they already stand.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can have considered the Amendment carefully. The meaning of the Amendment is this—that if the act which it is sought to prevent by intimidation is of such a character that it would itself involve a breach of contract or breach of honourable obligation the Resident Magistrate is not to have the power of giving six months' imprisonment because the party who was injured by the breach of contract or honourable obligation chooses to animadvert upon the breach of contract in a manner which the Resident Magistrate chooses to construe into intimidation. That is the effect of the Amendment, and I really do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General understands it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Mr. Courtney, Amendment, No. 82, is an Amendment which is designed to protect persons in Ireland who are simply exercising their legal rights. It is greatly to be apprehended that if the clause passes in its present shape Resident Magistrates will use it in a very improper manner, in order to force people to do what there is no obligation on them to do, but the omission of which they will construe into acts of intimidation. It raises in an indirect manner the question of exclusive dealing, on which we have never yet expressly had a decision of the Committee. Now, Sir, what I say is this—that as long as a man keeps within his legal rights no punishment ought to be inflicted upon him, no matter what Resident Magistrates may think about his action. If I, Sir, being a shopkeeper, and not being a licensed victualler or anyone under a legal obligation to supply certain goods, exercise my legal right and choose not to sell my goods to a particular person, I ought to be at liberty to take that course. Again, if I am a buyer at a fair, and choose not to buy of some person who has done something I dislike, surely I am only exercising my legal right if I do not buy from such a man, and ought not to be punished. The Government professes to be anxious to prevent intimidation. This is an Amendment to prevent intimidation by Resident Magistrates and other gentlemen occupying official positions in Ireland. It is an Amendment designed to preserve their legal rights to that vast body of the Queen's subjects in Ireland who take views upon political matters which are, no doubt, very offensive to Government officials in Ireland, but which, notwithstanding, it is perfectly competent for them to take. These persons ought not to be at the mercy of officious constables and Resident Magistrates who may choose to construe very innocent acts as acts of intimidation. I hope the Government, who say there is no freedom in Ireland, and that this Act is brought in to secure liberty for the people, will accept this Amendment, which is designed to preserve to a large class of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland the enjoyment of their legal rights.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after "doing," insert—"Provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to oblige or compel anybody to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

Mr. Courtney, I confess I have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words which are proposed by the hon. Member. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill which does compel anyone to do anything whatever; certainly there is nothing to compel anybody to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I cannot understand at all the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The ground upon which the Government cannot condescend to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy) is that there is nothing in this section which compels anyone to do or not to do anything within his legal rights. A few moments ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to what took place in 1882; but he need not have gone back so far—it would have been enough had he remembered what took place a few days ago. I recollect distinctly that when we were discussing the 1st sub-section of this clause the case of the Government was that they created no crime whatever by the clause; and yet, later on, the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) moved words limiting the clause, by declaring that nothing shall be punishable except that which is already punishable by law. Under those circumstances, it must be assumed that the Government did intend to alter the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) had difficulty in understanding to what this Amendment would apply. I will give him an in stance; suppose you went along a road whistling, it would apply to that. I know you have a perfect right to whistle on the road, yet we know that a boy of 12 years was committed to gaol for whistling at a policeman. I believe his sentence was afterwards commuted on technical grounds; but, at any rate, he was convicted by a Resident Magistrate, or two Resident Magistrates, of the very grave offence of whistling in the public streets. This Amendment would act as an indication to the Resident Magistrates that, although the Government did intend to give them enormous powers, they did not intend that the powers should be used for the purpose of punishing people for doing what they are perfectly entitled to do at present. This Amendment cannot possibly do any harm if the Government are anxious that the Act should be properly and fairly administered.

DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)

The Government now seek to get rid of an Amendment by saying they do not understand it, and they are sure hon. Members opposite do not understand it. That is a very easy form of argument; but I think it has been proved all through these debates that we do understand what we are aiming at. Our object is not to give power to irresponsible tribunals of such a character as will enable them to play ducks and drakes with justice in Ireland. This Amendment is, in our opinion, exceedingly important, for it aims at preventing a grossly improper use of the powers given by this clause to Resident Magistrates. Under this clause, as it stands, there is no doubt in the world that the tenant who refuses to buy from his landlord at some exorbitant rate may be brought up and sentenced by the two gentlemen to whom the power of adjudicating will be entrusted; he may be charged with intimidation or exclusive dealing, because he has refused to do something which his landlord may desire him to do. We are strongly of opinion that we ought to press this Amendment to a Division and I certainly think our constituents would be very discontented if we did not divide upon this occasion. I hope the Government will come to some reasonable understanding with us upon this very proper proposal of ours.

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

It is very refreshing that we can propose Amendments which the Government do not understand. We have hitherto been met by every form of excuse for the non-acceptance of our Amendments; but this is the first time we have had the reason assigned that the Government cannot understand what we propose. We put an intelligent form of words on the Paper, and the Government simply say, "We do not understand it." The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the other night said that an Amendment did not make the words of the Act any clearer: it seems that you are reduced to two replies; the first is, that the Amendment does not make the Act any clearer; and, secondly, that the Government do not understand what is proposed. This is a very convenient way of voting away the liberties of a people; but I submit that when you are dealing with a tribunal composed of Resident Magistrates the Government ought readily to accept Amendments providing that any acts legal in themselves should not be punishable. That is all this Amendment provides. In the section it is provided that a person who refuses to deal with another shall be penalized. The Government have been stumping the country with the idea that people have been deprived of the necessaries of life by reason of what they call "exclusive dealing;" but, under this Bill, persons will be compelled to buy from people as well as to sell to them. I presume that this Amendment deals with that particular direction of affairs. If a man has cows to sell he shall not be able to compel people to buy his cows. I do think that, under the circumstances, the Go- vernment might provide a little illumination to their own minds by reading the words of the Amendment. We have reached the most extraordinary pass that the Government propose to get rid of Amendments by reason of the languor, or pretended languor, of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who illustrates his languor by his posture at the present moment, or by the mental languor of the Attorney General for Ireland, who says he will not apply his mind to the understanding of our Amendments. I will not refer to the First Lord of the Treasury, because he understands everything that is said and done in this House; it would be unfair to apply any ordinary rules to the right hon. Gentleman. But I will take as the apex of intelligence on legal points the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), and ask him whether there is anything in this Amendment which the Government can really object to? This is a proposal that nothing in this clause shall be construed to oblige any person to do any act which he has a legal right to abstain from doing. For instance, if land-grabbers can allege they have been prevented from selling their cows by particular people, these people will be sentenced for refusing to buy the cows, because the Resident Magistrates, knowing nothing about the matter, will side with the land-grabbers. I will recall to the English mind a very old maxim, "Do unto others as you would be done by." Would Englishmen propose to apply this section to themselves; if this is so good for Ireland why do you not apply it to England; why do you not provide that the requirements of this section shall be applied to your own dealings in this country? You will not do that. Something may be said in favour of making it penal to refuse to sell to individuals; but, at any rate, why should the refusal to buy be made a penal offence? The Government say they desire nothing that they would not make the law in England. If that is so, I should imagine that when an Amendment is proposed providing that no act legal in itself shall be construed by the Resident Magistrates to be illegal the Government would have jumped at it, if we can conceive the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland indulging in any such activity. The Attorney General for Ireland says he cannot understand the Amendment. I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentle" man, if he were in Court, would it be fair to meet an argument by saying he could not understand it? He must understand the Amendment; he is paid to understand it; and I submit that; there is nothing clearer to the ordinary mind than to say that if a particular act is legal in itself it shall not be rendered illegal by any construction of law. To refuse to buy from any individual is a perfectly legal proceeding. The Government, only a half-an-hour ago, set forth by adopting a system of exclusive dealing. They said, that there are certain Amendments they will exclusively deal with, and that there are other Amendments they will not deal with at all; they really mean to Boycott certain Amendments, and allow me to say that is what we complain about. If you say it is fair, we say, from our point of view, our proceedings are equally fair. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—who is the chief of the tribe of exclusive dealers—I ask him to say whether he does not consider it is a perfectly legal thing to refuse to buy from persons of opposite politics? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will say that such a thing is perfectly legitimate. Under those circumstances, I ask the Government to reconsider their decision. It is really prolonging debate for the Government to treat us as they are treating us at the present time. Besides, the present system of dealing with Amendments is not a wise one; because all the Amendments they are now passing by can be put down as new clauses. If you treat our Amendments with contempt now, we shall simply be compelled to bring them forward as new clauses upon Report. I trust the Government will see their way to act in a logical manner in regard to the reasonable Amendments we propose.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

If there is anything more likely to occur than another, it is that a hunt in a certain district will be stopped, and there is nothing more certain than that farmers have a perfect right to prevent hunting over land in their possession. The Attorney General for Ireland will not deny that the holder and occupier of land has a perfect right to prevent people from hunting over his ground. Now, what occurred in the County of Waterford in December, 1883? On the 22nd of that month, 34 tenant farmers and labourers were prosecuted for interfering with the meat of the Curraghmore Hunt. The majority wore respectable men, but that did not prevent their being prosecuted. The evidence against them simply established the fact that they shouted, but committed no violence, or used any threats. Well, for merely assembling together and shouting, some of these men were sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour, others were sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and an application to have the imprisonment increased to a month for the purpose of having an appeal, was actually refused by the Resident Magistrates. On this occasion a rather remarkable incident occurred, and one which is extremely suggestive, and which shows what will happen under the administration of Acts like this. On the table were found printed forms of committal regularly filled up and only awaiting the magistrate's signature, the name of the convicted, and the amount of punishment awarded. It was quite evident the forms were filled up before the conclusion of the case, and immediately after the witnesses for the prosecution had given their evidence. I should like to know what answer the Attorney General for Ireland has for a case like this; he cannot deny it occurred. If he does deny it, I refer him to the public newspapers of the time, December, 1883; he will find the case reported in the Tory Papers as well as in the Nationalist papers. If he denies that this thing has happened, will he deny that it may happen under the present Act, and will he deny that it will be a reasonable thing to prevent such a case recurring. It is perfectly preposterous to imagine that a farmer in Ireland has not a perfect right to prevent any landlord he chooses from hunting over his land; and under this Act, unless this Amendment is adopted, you will have plenty of prosecutions in Ireland of farmers obnoxious to particular landlords for preventing them hunting. All I can say is, that I do not think it will conduce to the peace and good order of Ireland to have a clause like this, capable of being worked in such a fashion. If the Bill of the Government is to produce disorder, their wishes will speedily be realized.

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

I think that after the speeches which have been addressed to the Committee recently, the Government can scarcely plead obtuseness in regard to this Amendment. I think its scope is clear; it is a protection against an ill use of the clause as it stands. We have had the possible manner in which the clause can be applied fairly illustrated by the case of hunting, and I can endorse everything said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) in regard to the manner in which this clause will be made to apply in order to compel people to allow hunting to take place over their lands. Unless this Amendment be accepted, the Act will be reduced to an absurdity. The police, in the tyrannous exercise of their discretion, will commit such acts as will reduce the Act of Parliament to an absurdity. The police, I know, will be tempted to compel one labourer to speak to another. We have had the case of a boy being brought up for whistling at a policeman; is it not possible to conceive the case of a man being brought up for not speaking to his neighbour? The police may compel shopkeepers to sell to people whom they have no desire to trade with; they may compel a baker to sell his last loaf of bread to an obnoxious individual, although that loaf may be required for his own family. [Laughter.] It is quite possible that these things may be done in Ireland; it is a very easy matter to laugh at these things, but I can assure hon. Members that they are very likely to occur. After the illustrations we have given, the Government ought to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

Mr. Courtney, I beg to propose the omission of the word "riot," in line 35. No doubt, hon. Members of the Committee understand by "riot" some very serious occurrence. The ordinary idea is that a riot means the breaking of heads and great danger to property; but in point of law it is nothing of the kind; I will give a simple illustration. If two or three persons, one of them believing he has a right to get possession of a farm from which he has been evicted, join together and use violent language or violent gestures and take possession of the farm, that in law is a riot. Now, the Attorney General for Ireland, I am sure, will not contradict that. It is most important when we are dealing with an agrarian question about which there are a great many disputes, that we should not put it in the hands of Resident Magistrates, as is contemplated by this sub-section. If half-a-dozen people, as constantly happens, take possession of a farm, I do not think it ought to be within the power of a Resident Magistrate to punish the people by sentencing them to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. I am sure that is never intended. I do not know whether it is intended by the Government, but I do not think it is intended by the Committee. The Resident Magistrates of Ireland ought not to be entrusted with such power, and, therefore, I move this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, leave out "riot or."—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'riot or' stand part of the Clause."

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

I object to the Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I think that the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one. The riots of which the Government complain are generally riots which take place at evictions, and a riot taking place on such an occasion would be quite covered by the 1st sub-section dealing with a conspiracy, or by the subhead of Sub-section 2 of the clause which deals with assaults committed on officers of the law in administration of the law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

Mr. Courtney, I now rise to move the omission of the words "or unlawful assembly." I think, no doubt, I shall be met with the usual stock argument that these words were included in the Act of 1882. That was so; but we must look at these words in connection with Clause 7 of this Bill, which will carry the matter infinitely further than was ever contemplated in the Act of 1882. In the discussion on the Act of 1882 it was promised by the then Government that that Act should never be put in force for the purpose of putting a stop to political agitation of any kind, and as a matter of fact, it was never so used; and I am informed that there never was a prosecution under this particular section to which we are now referring. In this Bill hon. Members will see, on referring to Clause 7, that it will be possible for the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim and prohibit at any time any association which he believes to be dangerous, and having so declared the association to be a dangerous one, then any meeting of any kind or assembly in connection with that association would become an unlawful meeting, and under the clause now before the Committee, it will be possible for any person taking part in any such meeting, or practically any part in the combination alluded to in Clause 7, will become liable to be imprisoned with hard labour for six months. That appears to me to be a very dangerous power to give to Resident Magistrates. You are practically giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to put an end to every kind of political agitation, or to any combination of an agrarian character. However, I do not propose now to enter fully into a discussion of Clause 7; but I mention it for the purpose of showing that we must scrutinize very closely the section now under consideration. What I want to understand from the Government, in the first place, is what they intend by the words, "unlawful assembly;" and, secondly, what they intend by "take part in any riot or unlawful assembly." It is quite true that there are certain dicta of the Judges which would carry "unlawful assembly" very far, and, I believe, it has been said by some people that the mere assembling together for an unlawful purpose is an unlawful assembly; but, so far as I can make out, that is not the view of the best lawyers on the subject, and that unlawful assembly has a much more, a very much more restricted sense. In the Criminal Code an unlawful assembly is defined as an assembly of three or more persons to carry out any common purpose in such a manner as to disturb the peace or to provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously. What I wish to ascertain from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from the Attorney General for England, is that whether in that restricted sense they understand the words "unlawful assembly," or whether they understand them in the much vaguer and wider sense? What is the moaning of the words "take part in?" I have consulted able lawyers on this question, and many of them believe that the words "take part in" mean merely being present at an assembly. Well, is that the sense in which the Government intend these words to be construed? Do they really mean that persons merely being present at such meetings will be liable to be imprisoned for six months with hard labour? On this point there have been various decisions given in the Law Courts, and although I do not find that any person has ever been indicted for taking part in an unlawful assembly—the indictments generally run for tumultuous and unlawful assembly, which is a very different thing. A very important case arose out of the Gravesend election in 1869, and in that case it was laid down that any persons who were present at a tumultuous and riotous meeting, but did not actually take part in the riot, although they were immediately concerned with persons who did take part in it, were not guilty of any offence. The Court even held that the person who actually employed a number of persons who took part in the riot, was not guilty of any offence. Do the Government mean to convey that persons present at a meeting are to be liable to be indicted? These words are apparently unknown to the law at present, certainly they have never been included in any indictment. At present, I do not wish to do more than raise the question as to what is the real meaning of those words. As they stand, they are words of the very vaguest description, and are not such as can safely be interpreted by that very ignorant class of persons—namely, the Resident Magistrates. At present, there is always the protection of a jury and the higher Judges of the land in such cases, whereas, now, what is proposed is to relegate these cases to inferior Courts. I beg to move the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, leave out, "unlawful assembly."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'unlawful assembly' stand part of the Clause."

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

I may reassure the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the first part of his remarks, by reminding him of a fact he will not dispute—namely, that he himself voted for a precisely similar clause in 1882. I cannot agree that this is not a legitimate argument to use; however, I will not refer to the action of previous Parliaments, but will deal with this sub-section on its merits. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact with which, I think, he can hardly be acquainted, though the Attorney General for Ireland has just alluded to it—namely, that last Wednesday the Committee decided to extend this particular sub-section, not merely to proclaimed districts, but to unproclaimed districts. The hon. Member for Cork told us just now that he did not at all believe that the section was good, but that if it were adopted it should be adopted impartially. If the thing is bad in itself it ought to be restricted to the narrowest possible limits. If the Committee decided that it should be extended to the whole of Ireland, whether the whole of Ireland was proclaimed or not, I take it it was the fact that the whole of the Committee were of opinion that the provision is in itself a good one. What we know of recent Irish history is ample ground for thinking that that opinion is correct. Why do hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway desire the provision to be extended to the whole of Ireland? The reason probably is that they think the Government would not proclaim Ulster, where there are likely to be unlawful meetings which should be dealt with summarily.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

No; riots.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member included the whole of the section. The argument was that there might be unlawful assemblies, and that these should be dealt with summarily. Undoubtedly, what we know of judicial proceedings in Ireland confirms that view. What was it that constantly happened at the trials which were held after the Belfast riots? Why, it happened that the Judge frequently instructed the jury that those who were brought up for trial were not guilty of riot, but were guilty of taking part in an unlawful assembly; and it was on that instruction from the Judge that the jury found thorn guilty. If that course had not been adopted by the Judge these people could not have been found guilty of unlawful assembly. They could have been found guilty of riot; but they would not have been open to summary jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that in these cases accused persons ought to have the protection of a jury. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be aware that a Royal Commission sat on the Belfast riots and reported on this very question; and, according to the Report of that Royal Commission, one of the things recommended for the prevention of these riots—which are a disgrace to Ireland, and I here speak of Ireland as a whole—was the adoption of a summary mode of dealing with the offenders. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is carried it would be impossible to punish rioters in the North of Ireland by summary conviction. I have not rested my case on the precedent of the Act of 1882, but I have rested myself on facts which are notorious. I have shown the Committee that the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this question of rioting in the North of Ireland conclusively proves that if this Amendment is carried a blow will be struck against public peace and order in that part of the country; and for this reason, if for no other, I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has asked one or two questions upon legal points which I think he ought not to have asked. He asked what taking part in an assembly was? I would reply to his question that taking part in an assembly is a question of fact, and means, not being present in the neighbourhood of such an assembly, but taking part in it and voting at it. But I am not capable of entering into legal discussions with the right hon. Gentleman upon imaginary cases. Taking part in an assembly, I say, is a question of fact which has consequently to be decided by the tribunals of the country, and the tribunals which exist in Ireland are perfectly competent to determine such cases. The reasons I have given, drawn entirely from the North of Ireland, are quite sufficient, I think, to convince the Committee that whatsoever else we do, we should seriously weaken the strength of the clause if we were to accept this Amendment.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I would press Her Majesty's Government to answer this question as to what the meaning of taking part in an assembly is? Does it mean simply vot- ing at a meeting? The right hon. Gentleman himself has drawn a distinction between taking part in a meeting and taking an "active" part in one.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have done nothing of the kind. I have drawn no distinction; but have said that taking part in an unlawful assembly means taking an active part.

MR. JAMES STUART

Then I ask what taking an active part in a meeting is? This is an important question, and I desire to know who are to be held the persons taking an active part in an unlawful assembly—is it those who are present at the meeting; is it those who summon the meeting; or those who vote at the meeting? Does it include these? The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not mean those who are in the neighbourhood of the meeting and are not taking part in it.

MR. COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I observe there is another question which has been asked and has not yet been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is a most important question, and it is whether or not the Government intend to limit by this Act the definition of "unlawful assembly?" ["No, No!"] If they do not, I presume the "unlawful assembly" which is intended to be meant by this Act is unlawful assembly as known to Common Law in England, and not as known or as defined by this Act, or as known under the heading of an assembly of a dangerous association. I think the Committee can hardly be aware of the extremely vague terms in which "unlawful assembly" under the Common Law of England has been described. I will simply quote one case to show how enormously wide the description of "unlawful assembly," as it has been laid down, is. I will mention the well-known case of the Peterloo massacre, where the Judge laid down and defined the law as to unlawful assemblies in these words— All persons assembled to sow sedition and bringing into contempt the Constitution are in an unlawful assembly. All persons assembled in furtherance of this object are unlawfully assembled. I may mention, also, the fact that persons have been convicted under indictments in this country framed in the following language:— For unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously meeting for the purpose of exciting discontent and disaffection, and inciting the subjects of the Queen to hatred and contempt of the Government and Constitution of this Realm as by law established. [Ministerial cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that language; but I say that the only thing that has prevented that law from being grossly abused in this country has been the right of trial by jury, and if this law is to be laid down as applicable to Ireland, and if Resident Magistrates are to administer the law as laid down in those terms, I should like to ask whether there is a Resident Magistrate in Ireland who will not consider every political meeting of every sort or kind in Ireland an ''unlawful assembly?"

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I think I can describe to the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by taking an active part in a meeting. He first attempted to draw a distinction between taking a part and taking an "active" part. I think I heard him ask whether the reporters who come to attend a meeting or an unlawful assembly would be considered by the Resident Magistrate as taking part in that unlawful assembly and would come under that Act? Would the right hon. Gentleman opposite do me the favour to say whether those people would come under the Act or not? He is silent; but the Resident Magistrates—I am speaking from their recorded action—are not silent upon the point. We have a case where two reporters were sent to prison for four months for attending a meeting in the ordinary course of their duty, just as a French journalist or English journalist might be sent to prison at any moment for doing so.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I should like to ask upon what kind of evidence is a person to be convicted? As I have always understood the law in this country, or the practice of this country, people are exceedingly jealous of any punishment on taking part in meetings; and above all things it is required that there should be the fullest proof that a meeting did take place, and that the people refused to disperse when called upon to do so, and that there was violence exercised. I have had a wide experience in these matters, and in many instances I have attended the places where the meetings were proclaimed and forbidden to be held, and there can be no doubt that the more fact of my presence at those places, in numberless instances, would have been hold by the police to constitute in the case of the people gathered there taking active part in an unlawful assembly. In Rosslea, for instance, no meeting took place, and there was not the slightest intention to hold any meeting. The police, however, and the Government reporter stated that a meeting did take place, and the police dispersed some people in the streets. Though I say no meeting was held, and though it was not proposed to hold a public meeting, nevertheless, the police charged the people and scattered them, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that if this section of this Bill had been in force at that time, the people in the streets of Rosslea would have been liable to be brought up and convicted for taking part in an "unlawful assembly" on the evidence of the very policeman who apprehended and batoned them in the streets. If I had been examined under such circumstances my oath would have been to the effect that no meeting took place; but that would not have availed anything, because the people had gathered into the town, and the magistrates would have held that an "unlawful assembly" had taken place, and every one of those thousands of people would have been liable to imprisonment under this clause. A practice of the most scandalous and mischievous character as to meetings of this kind exists in Ireland. What was done in this case? Why a Proclamation was issued on the Saturday subsequent to the publication of the Saturday newspapers, prohibiting the meeting which it had been announced 10 days before was to be held. Under those circumstances, how was it possible that people could be prevented from attending? That kind of thing has been done for 40 years. In the days of the Clontraf meeting, the same thing was done, and unquestionably with the deliberate intent of producing bloodshed. A meeting was proclaimed on Saturday, and messengers had to be on the road all Saturday night in order to do what they could to prevent people from attending. What I have described is the usual practice in Ireland; for no matter what notice the Executive gets of the meeting, they generally proclaim it on a Saturday morning too late for the newspapers, and consequently the people do not know of it. It is a fact, then, that even where really and truly an assembly which could not be described as a meeting has taken place, parties may be charged with having taken part in an unlawful assembly when they are seen walking about the town in which a meeting has been proclaimed; and that may be tried by the magistrates, who, probably, may have been the very persons who instructed the police to charge the people.

MR. A. COHEN (Southwark, W.)

I would remind the Committee that during the discussion on the Crimes Prevention Act my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was asked what meaning he gave to "unlawful assembly," and he said that an unlawful assembly, in point of fact, was "an inchoate riot—a meeting called together with the intention of using force. That was an ordinary question which the magistrate was bound to decide." I agree with that opinion; and I am only supporting the Amendment because I want the Government to state what they mean by the words "unlawful assembly." When a magistrate has the power of summary conviction for an offence, the offence ought to be clearly established by Statute, or ought to be so defined that it will be clearly known to the law. I submit that these words "unlawful assembly" have not a legal meaning which is perfectly clear and defined; and if Her Majesty's Government will place in the Definition Clause a definition of "unlawful assembly" similar to that contained in the Draft Code proposed by the late Sir John Holker, who was Attorney General in one of the late Conservative Governments, I, for my part, will not oppose any word in this clause. I am, however, opposed to these words "unlawful assembly," because Her Majesty's Government have not condescended to tell us distinctly what they mean by them. Every lawyer will agree with me that when "unlawful assembly" has been described as an inchoate riot by such an authority it is necessary that some limitation should be observed for the protection of those who may be in the locality. Some of Her Majesty's Judges, in connection with riots, have pronounced dicta which extend the meaning of "unlawful assembly." It is quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General described those dicta as fossil dicta the other day; but it must be remembered that dicta of this kind are respected in every judicial Court and cited. But in face of these dicta it really cannot be said that there is a definite and clearly-ascertained meaning to be given to the words "unlawful assembly." Now, what objection can there be on the part of Her Majesty's Government to giving these words the same definition which is contained in the Draft Code that I have referred to? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says—"See what the consequences will be." Well, I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman at all. He spoke about the Belfast riots. Why, if the definition given in the Draft Code had been adopted, undoubtedly those persons who took part in the Belfast riots would have been found guilty of taking part in an "unlawful assembly." If the definition I suggest were adopted by Her Majesty's Government, all persons found guilty under such circumstances would be found guilty in accordance with the definition contained in the Draft Code. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires to keep the law as vague and obscure as possible, in order to enable the Resident Magistrates to imprison whom they please, it is well for them not to adopt any definition; but I cannot conceive that, for a moment, to be the intention of the Government. It would be undignified, and would be discreditable to the wisdom of the Legislature, and to the ability and intelligence of the Government as statesmen. I, therefore, appeal to Her Majesty's Government to say whether it is our duty, or whether it is not our duty, to give the Resident Magistrates a clear idea of the offences with which they have to deal. If it is true that there is some obscurity as to the meaning of the words "unlawful assembly," ought we not to clear that obscurity away and give a proper definition? The only thing I ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to put in the Definition Clause some definition of those words, and then I think there can be no objection to the clause. It seems to me that it is our duty to object to these words until we know for certain that there will be some clear definition given to them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite adopts the definition that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, when he was conducting a similar measure through this House. If the right hon. Gentleman adopts that definition, then lot it be put in the Definition Clause. If he does not adopt it, then really he ought to tell us what meaning the Government attach to these words. The only object I have in view is, if possible, to take cave that the offences contained in this clause are clearly defined, so that the Resident Magistrates may know over what offences they have jurisdiction, and so that innocent persons may not be kept in gaol for long periods.

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to me, during a portion of his observations, to have forgotten that the Amendment moved and supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is an Amend merit to omit the words "unlawful assembly." Now, we decline to accede to this Amendment, because we believe that it would materially injure the clause to omit these words. What is an unlawful assembly? A great deal has been stated about words of art, but, so far as I understand words of art, they are to be found in the words "unlawful assembly." These words are to be found again and again in Statutes, and in none of these Statutes is there a definition of the words. I am asked what, then, is the meaning of them? The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has stated what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) when a similar question was put to him in 1882. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the words meant "an inchoate riot." I think that, in a short space, we could not have a better definition than that. But the right hon. Gentleman used one word or two afterwards which did not very well harmonize with our view of the law; but, at any rate, those words which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted we agree with. But why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman—for he was a Member of the House at the time—get up and ask the right hon. Gentleman to define the words "unlawful assembly" in his Bill? There is no such definition in the Act of 1882. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not make that speech then, because he was at that time supporting the Government. He takes a different attitude now, because he is in opposition. The Attorney General for England may consider the adoption of some definition; but, whether he takes one view or another, the words "unlawful assembly" are perfectly intelligible to every lawyer in every Assize town in Ireland. The expression "unlawful assembly" is a term of art. It has never been suggested that every collection of people in a town is an "unlawful assembly." The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as though "unlawful assembly" is an interchangeable term with "public meeting;" but that is not so. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that this particular provision in the Act of 1882 was never put in force.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I said no summary conviction had taken place under it.

MR. HOLMES

There were summary convictions obtained, both for riots and unlawful assemblies; but they were unlawful assemblies in the ordinary way. As I have already said, those words were a term of art. We can no more attempt to define "lawful assembly" than we can attempt to define "riot." We adopt the term in its usual sense, and in no other way. We ask the Committee to adhere to the words which appear to us to be most important to the North, the South, and, in fact, to every other part of Ireland.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, of course, has to defend the Bill; and in this case, he objects to the Amendment because, as he says, the words "unlawful assembly" are a term of art, and he very wisely adds, have a definite meaning in English Law. He went on to give us the definite meaning that those words have in English Law. He told us that they meant ''an inchoate riot," or a meeting called for the purpose of riot, and that he acquiesced in that opinion. He objected, then, to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House arguing the question as "if unlawful assembly were a term interchangeable with public meeting." Now, allow me to refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the terms of his own Bill. Let me remind him that, under Clause 6, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he deems it to be true that dangerous associations exist in any part of Ireland, may issue a Proclamation merely stating the fact, and putting certain clauses in force, and then under the next clause of the Bill, he is able to use proclamations to show what he considers to be an unlawful association. Having begun upon that foundation he may declare any association to be a dangerous association, and— From and after the date of such order, and during the continuance thereof, every assembly or meeting of such association, or of the members of it as such members in the specified district shall be an unlawful assembly. Now, Sir, I would draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—that the only Proclamation that will come before Parliament is a blind one, stating that, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an unlawful association exists, and under the next clause he would have perfect power, without any control being exercised by this House, to put in force the Act against every meeting of such unlawful association as an unlawful assembly. Well, Sir, in the face of that, is it possible to say that in this Act the term "unlawful assembly" means a meeting called for the purpose of riot? The very moment the Proclamation is issued by the Lord Lieutenant, and before any meetings are called, whatever meetings may in the future be held, are already declared unlawful. Is it possible to argue that the Lord Lieutenant, by some extraordinary pro-science, will know a week before a meeting takes place that that meeting will be an inchoate riot? I ask, is it possible that the Committee will allow such an enormous change to be introduced into the law? Up to the present we have had a clear and distinct definition of unlawful assembly in England. You are giving very great despotic power, and, therefore, I trust the Committee will pause before they allow such a definition of unlawful assembly to pass.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I desire to correct a statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) who introduced this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said there were no prosecutions for political meetings under the Crimes Act of 1882. As a matter of fact, there were several prosecutions under the Act of 1882, not merely for riots, but for unlawful meetings, and it is very curions that one of the prosecutions was against two gentlemen of the Press who had gone to a meeting for the purpose of reporting the proceedings. A Resident Magistrate named Mr. Perry, a gentleman who is still in the Commission of the Peace, ordered the representatives of the Press off the ground where the meeting was to be held. They protested against the order, saying that they were present in the performance of a duty to the public, and that, in the interest of the public and of the people present, they had a right to be there. The two reporters were summoned and convicted for being present on the occasion. Curiously enough, the Presiding Magistrate on that occasion is one of the very gentlemen who will have the carrying out of the present Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) instanced the case of the Belfast riots; but the ease of those riots do not bear out the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He intimated that unless the Belfast rioters could not have been tried on a charge of unlawful assembly, they could not have been convicted. But this section is not only to bring people guilty of unlawful assembly to justice, but it is, also, to transfer the trial of such persons from juries to Resident Magistrates. Now, in the case of the Belfast riots, it is well known—it was said by the Chief Secretary himself—that justice was obtained, for the jury convicted every one of the rioters. It seems to me that that is an argument in favour of the Amendment, and not against it. An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) who spoke from these Benches a while ago, expressed a doubt as to the intentions of the Government; he said he did not believe the Government intended to give power to Resident Magistrates to ferret out everybody who might be disposed to take possession of farms from which they had been evicted, and send them to prison. If he has any doubts on the subject we have none. We know exactly what they are about to do do; we know what they want to do under this Act. They want to put down political agitation altogether in Ireland, and the readiest means of doing that is to entrust the administration of this section to tools of their own, to men who will be completely under their thumb, and who, experience has shown, are capable of being bribed, and will be bribed by special promotion for special services under this Act.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The difficulty in this case has arisen from the use of words which bear a double meaning. The words "unlawful assembly," as I understand them, have a very different meaning in the popular mind from what they have technically or in indictments. If you once admit that a riot ought to be punished summarily, it would be absurd to exclude the offence which has been described as "inchoate riot." If the Government mean that the words must be taken in their technical sense, why do they not so express it in their Act? They say there is no necessity for a definition, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has told us that no lawyers are capable of giving any meaning to the words unlawful assembly. Permit me to remind the Government that this Act will not be administered by lawyers, but by Resident Magistrates; and though it is quite right to say that no lawyer would think for a moment of regarding a public meeting as an unlawful assembly, there is the gravest danger that two Resident Magistrates, unlearned in the law, may take that unreasonable course. And allow me to say also that the definitions of unlawful assembly in the legal text books are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant Resident Magistrates taking that extraordinary course. In Roscoe's Criminal Practice, one of the best legal text books, I find that— Any meeting whatsoever of great numbers of people as would endanger the public peace and raise fears and jealousies amongst the Queen's subjects seems properly called an unlawful assembly. There is hardly a meeting you could hold in Ireland on any subject which two Resident Magistrates would not hold to be a meeting calculated to ''raise fears and jealousies amongst the Queen's subjects." I suppose the Irish landlords are not yet excluded from the category of the Queen's subjects; and I suppose, a great number of meetings held in the course of the land agitation were eminently calculated to raise fears and jealousies amongst that class of Her Majesty's subjects. Still it would be a monstrous thing that because meetings were calculated to put terror into landlords' hearts, so far as their rack-rents were concerned, all persons taking part in those meetings should be liable to be sent to gaol for six months with hard labour. The same writer, citing the language of Mr. Justice Bailey, says— All persons assembling to sow sedition and bring into contempt the Constitution is an unlawful assembly. There have been some thousands of meetings held by Nationalists in Ireland during the past half-dozen years; and I venture to say there was not a single one out of the thousands at which language was not used which two Resident Magistrates would not consider was calculated "to sow sedition and bring into contempt the Constitution." That being so, it is really too much to expect us to believe that when this vague language is used in this Act of Parliament, there is no danger that two Resident Magistrates will not misconstrue it in the manner I have mentioned. Then the writer goes on to say— If the meeting held is from its general appearances and all the surrounding circumstances, calculated to excite terror, alarm and consternation, it is criminal and unlawful. Surely, when you have a well-known text-writer describing the offence of unlawful assembly in language so susceptible of misconstruction as that, it is really monstrous to say there is no necessity for a definition of the words. I have only another word to say, and that is in regard to the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He referred to the words "take part in." Hitherto, in order to prove the offence of unlawful assembly, it was necessary to show that the person charged took an active part in whatever was illegal in the assembly. It was not sufficient to show that a man was present; it was necessary to show that he was there concurring in whatever the illegality of the meeting was, and taking part in the illegality. Unless you clearly define the meaning of the words taking part in, there is not the slightest doubt that two Resident Magistrates in Ireland will consider that to be present is to take part in an unlawful assembly. Upon both the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, we are entitled to hear something more from the Government.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I merely wish to say a word in explanation. When I stated a short time ago that no prosecution took plane under a similar clause to this in the Act of 1882, I did so on what I believed very good authority—namely, two or three hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has quoted three or four cases which took place, but it seems to me they took place under another clause of the Act of 1882—namely, the clause empowering the Lord Lieutenant to suppress meetings which he believed to be dangerous to the public peace. Therefore, I might be quite right in saying that no prosecution took place under the clause of the Act of 1882 dealing with unlawful assemblies. One of the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was certainly very significant as bearing on the other point I referred to—namely, as to the meaning of the words "taking part in." It appears that two reporters were actually prosecuted, and sent to prison for attending to take a report of the proceedings of a meeting. If that is to be taken as the meaning of the clause now under consideration—if reporters who are present for the purpose of taking a report are to be sent to prison with hard labour, I must say, to me this seems a very harsh measure. If the Government will undertake to give a definition of unlawful meeting in the terms of the statement made by the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), I shall be quite content, and shall not divide the Committee; but if they are not prepared to give any such definition, I think the Committee will do wisely to divide.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 263 Noes 145: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 174.) [12.15 A. M.]

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

In consequence of the understanding arrived at to-day, I beg now to move that you, Sir, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. [Interruption.] I wish the right hon. Member opposite would not shake his hoary locks at me in that way. As I understand, it was arranged by all sections of the House that, in order to prevent a sitting of the House to-morrow, we should agree to-night to take those discussions which would otherwise come on to-morrow. I must say I arrived at that determination with great reluctance. If we should meet to-morrow, well and good. We should commence the discussion of those subjects on which we are interested in the afternoon, if we had an Afternoon Sitting, but we should not finish the debate, and we should have to go on with it again afterwards, because I do not see how it would be possible for us to discuss the question, which it is proposed to raise, at an Afternoon Sitting. We should have to meet again in the evening. We should be kept here until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, we should all lose our trains to-morrow night, and should come down here after dinner, and go on as I say until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. It is understood in a proposal emanating not from this, but from the other side of the House—from the Government themselves—that we shall agree to report Progress at an early hour. I may be entirely mistaken in thinking that this is an early hour (1.30 A.M.), and if so I withdraw the expression. But as I understand it, the Government gave an undertaking that at half-past 12 o'clock, the Committee should agree to report Progress. I put it to every Gentleman who has not been present during our debates to-night, whether we have not made substantial progress with the Bill. I put it to those hon. Gentlemen who have not been here to-night, and who now see the amount of work which has been got through in their absence, whether we have not made wonderful progress? They have got nearly the whole clause, or, at any rate, as far as line 36. In order to show that the remainder of the clause will take a long time to discuss, I may point out that the clause lays it down that it shall be unlawful for a person to retake possession of any house or land from which he has been ejected within 12 months' of the writ of ejectment; but in the Bill of 1882, as originally drafted, the period was only six months. Well, Mr. Gibson, now Lord Ashbourne, in 1882, moved to extend the period from six months to nine months, and he did so in the absence of the Irish Members who were suspended. Now, however, the Government propose to extend that period from nine months to 12 months. If we have to meet to-morrow, well, we must meet to-morrow. Nobody will enjoy a meeting to-morrow more than I shall myself; but it seems to me that in view of the Officers of the House, including Mr. Speaker, it is extremely desirable that we should prevent, if possible, another day's debate. In mercy to the Officers of the House I now beg to move that you, Sir, do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was any understanding that we should report Progress at this hour. For the private convenience of hon. Members, believing it to be the desire of the House generally, we agreed that the adjournment might take place this evening if possible, instead of to-morrow; but I intimated that I thought it only reasonable that this clause should be disposed of to-night; but I do not desire to press hon. Members to carry on subsequent discussions in any way disagreeable to them. I understood it to be their wish that we should complete the Business to-night, so as to render it unnecessary to meet to-morrow. I, however, consider it imperative that we should make some distinct progress. I think the progress we have made tonight has been sufficient to show that with a little more consideration the Committee will be able to dispose of the whole of this clause this evening. I hope the hon. and learned Member will consent to withdraw his Motion, and will allow the Committee to dispose of the very few questions that now remain to be decided.

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

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government has a right to demand some substantial progress to the clause this evening; but I think the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying, or in assuming, that the Government have not already made very substantial progress; and all I can say is that if they compare the amount of progress made to-night with the amount of progress made every other night since this Bill came into Com- mittee, they will find that the progress to-night will boar a most favourable contrast with the progress of other nights. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad that statement receives the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then I take it that they quite agree with me in the statement that the First Lord of the Treasury has succeeded in the purpose for which he set out this evening—namely, of making substantial progress in the clauses of this Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not know whether hon. Gentleman opposite, who seem inclined to interrupt, have done us the honour to attend here during the whole of the evening. I think the large majority of them were not in their places during the dinner hour this evening. Let me point out to them—and to the Committee generally—that to-night we have got through a whole sub-section and a portion of another sub-section. [Interruption.] If I am met with this interruption all I can say is this, that hon. Gentlemen will find that on another occasion we shall not be willing to enter into any kind of contract. We shall insist on being listened to with patience and courtesy; or, if not, we will see if those who give an example of discourtesy and impatience can possibly get the better of us. I say we have disposed of a whole sub-section containing some of the most complicated and delicate and, as we think, most oppressive portions of this Bill. ["No, no!"] Well, I should like the First Lord of the Treasury to point to a single instance in reference not only to this Coercion Bill, but any Coercion Bill in which Parliament has ever been engaged, in which so much progress has been made in a single evening. Let me point out a misstatement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He seems to think that in agreeing to an adjournment this evening, instead of to-morrow, he has been merely yielding to an appeal made from this quarter of the House. But that is not the fact. We agreed to the arrangement because we thought it convenient to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Followers and to the Committee generally. So far as we are concerned, we are quite willing that the House should not adjourn to-night, but that it should meet again to-morrow. In point of fact, I may say that in assenting to the adjournment to-night we did so at the sacrifice of what we considered our rights, and at a sacrifice, to a large extent, of our feelings; because we have a strong desire—and I suppose many sections of the House have a similarly strong desire—to discuss some other subjects besides the Coercion Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, from his view of public duties and from his view of the importance of the Coercion Bill, has brought us to such a position that no opportunity has been left to us for independent discussion, or for the discussion of any other topic whatever, no matter how small or how largo it may be. Everyone who is acquainted with the House knows that the Motion for Adjournment for a vacation is always seized by Members for bringing before the attention of the Committee generally those topics which they are precluded from discussing at every other period of the Session. Well, we are anxious to take advantage of this opportunity and bring before the attention of the country—and especially before the attention of our own country—certain matters connected with the administration of the government in Ireland. I understand, also, that several Members who represent Scotch constituencies, and who have been precluded from discussing questions of great importance to those constituents, are anxious to take advantage of the Adjournment in order to bring those matters before the attention of Parliament and their country. I suppose there is scarcely a section of this House—with the exception of the Party opposite—who are not anxious to raise a subject which they regard as of importance, and which they have been precluded from debating at all previous periods of the Session. That being the feeling on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would regard it as a concession from him to us, that we should have an opportunity of discussing the present measure, or, perhaps, a concession from us to him, that we should prevent the opportunity we so earnestly desire of discussing these matters which are of interest to us. The right hon. Gentleman should act in the spirit of give and take. We have surrendered to him the opportunity of discussing matters of great importance to our people—that is, of discussing them at a time when those matters can be properly discussed and brought before the notice of the public, at the same time, we ask him to give us an opportunity of taking those discussions before the small hours of the morning, when discussion really becomes farcical. I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should have made such a proposal as that we should give him the whole of the clause. He knows that part of the clause is Sub-section 4, and deals with the re enactment of the Whiteboy Acts. [Cries of "No, no!" and "That is to be withdrawn."] I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to withdraw that part of his Bill at the Report stage; but if he looks at the 5th sub-section which he has not withdrawn, he will find that it raises some questions that we must insist upon having discussed. Under the circumstances, I must say that, seeing the concession we have made to the right hon. Gentleman this evening, and seeing the amount of progress we have made not only in what we have passed, but in the cumber of Divisions we have avoided, and in having foregone our right to full discussion on the matters we wish to bring forward, I think the right hon. Gentleman might very reasonably now assent to reporting Progress. There is a matter of great interest to the whole House generally—namely, the appointment of the Committee into the Army and Navy Expenditure, and that is to be discussed to-night. The composition of this Committee is a matter of great importance. [Cries of "Question!"] If hon. Members opposite will have patience with me, I will show that I am perfectly in Order. I am showing the importance of the Business that is awaiting discussion. I am showing the right hon. Gentleman that there are many persons deeply interested in these matters, and that they may desire to discuss thorn at full length. I sympathize with those hon. Members in their view, and, indeed, I desire to help them in their discussion.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Perhaps the Government will allow me to say that I think they are somewhat under a misapprehension as to their powers of getting through the whole of this clause to-night. As I read the Rules, they cannot put the clôture on this clause, except when some Amendment has been previously carried. Now, if a Motion to report Progress is moved, I do not think the Government would be in order, in view of the ruling that has been given, to put the whole of the clause. The best way, I think, to bring matters to an issue is to go to the marrow of the powers of the Government. It is no use talking of sentiment; but let us go at once to the root of these powers. That being so, I would impress upon the Government the desirability of considering whether we could not agree to some terms to-night without further imposition of those Rules of Olôture. The Government will remember that in the Act of 1882, when this clause was under discussion, a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the bosoms of their constituencies, and had not been born to Parliamentary life. At the time of which I am speaking, several nights were devoted to the discussion of this clause, which did not possess many of the objectionable trimmings which are now attached to it. If it took six or eight nights to discuss it in its naked character, how many more ought it not to take now? The Conspiracy section, we must remember, gives to Resident Magistrates the powers which hitherto have only been given to juries, and there are two or three of those powers yet remaining to be discussed. They are most important questions, and how, I ask, can they be disposed of at this late hour of the night? [Noise and interruption.] Unless intelligent Gentlemen opposite will abstain from making noises, it is impossible to carry on what really amounts to a legal argument. Hon. Gentlemen get excited at this hour. I do not know why it is. We do not object to what I may call—[Cries of "Order!"]—I am giving a reason why the Government should not press this matter to any further length tonight; but hon. Gentlemen come in to sit in this House, because it is the most pleasant part of the building to sit in, and instead of listening to what is going on, they make noises that are really intolerable. [Cries of "Order!"] I say, that to insist upon continuing the discussion at this late hour of the night is not fair. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand what is going on. [Cries of "Order!"] I am not saying that in an adverse spirit, but am putting it in what I conceive to be a most reasonable way. I think right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite could reasonably concur in the Motion for Progress on the understanding that it was not we who initiated it. It was not we who initiated the proposal to report Progress at an early period of the evening. It came, I assert, without fear of contradiction, from Her Majesty's Government, and from them alone. [Cries of "No!"] What occurred came through the "usual channels," and as the communications that wore made were of a private nature, we are always averse to declaring them in the House. But I state the fact that the proposal that the House should adjourn to-night came from Her Majesty's Government. ["No, no!"] I am stating what I am conscious of, and of which I suppose hon. Gentlemen opposite are not. I say this proposal proceeded from Her Majesty's Government. ["No, no!"] I hope hon. Members will allow me to finish without contradiction. I say that the proposal that we should adjourn tonight, instead of to-morrow night, emanated not from this side of the House, but from that. ["No, no!"] I hope Her Majesty's Government will not press us for details; but if they do, we will state the facts, sorry though I should be to have to do so. I say that it was a communication which came from the other side of the House, from the Government Benches and from a Member of Her Majesty's Government, which induced us to assent to the proposal. [An hon. MEMBER: When?] To-day, at Question time. I will put it in this way—a proposal came from a Member of Her Majesty's Government, who is classified as "one of the usual channels," that we should agree not to take discussion to-morrow, but should allow the Adjournment to be taken today. We said we agreed to that, with this limitation—provided that there was an understanding that you will agree to report Progress at 11 o'clock. That was met by saying—"We cannot agree to report Progress at 11 o'clock; but we think that it would be reasonable to report Progress about 12.30." Well, we waited until 12.30 before moving to report Progress on the distinct understanding that that would prevent us from meeting to-morrow. If we are to meet to-morrow, let it be at 4 o'clock. ["No, no!"] They will not agree to anything. Lot us adjourn until tomorrow, until 4 or 4.30, but do not let us meet at 2, in order to take a discussion which will be talked out at 7 o'clock, and which will necessitate our meeting again at 9 o'clock. Let us meet at 4 o'clock, and discuss the matter in a regular way. If the Government elect to go on to-night, let it not be with the idea of getting this clause passed. Let them discharge that idea from their minds altogether. They may make progress with the Amendments; but I beseech hon. Gentlemen to purge their minds from any idea of getting the whole clause to-night. I speak as an expert in this matter.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I wish to know if we are to adjourn to-night, or to meet to-morrow? The hon. Member for Ross-shire (Dr. McDonald) rose to bring a matter before the House the other day, when the clôture was moved, and that question we are still anxious to bring before the House. We want to have the question of the manner in which the Crofters Act is administered discussed by the House.

MR. W. H. SMITH

It is not necessary for me to repeat the proposal which was made. The proposal to adjourn the House to-night came to me from the other side of the House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

From whom? Mention the name.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I say what I believe to be true. A representation was made to me, and I assented to it on the terms that I have stated in the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are, I believe, in the habit of accepting statements that I make in my place in this House. An hon. Member asks me if time will be allowed for discussing certain questions that he desires to raise. I say again, if it is the desire of the House to meet to-morrow, I shall make no difficulty whatever in moving the Adjournment until to-morrow. I wish to meet the wishes of the House on this matter, but I certainly feel that I am entitled to ask that the Committee should make reasonable progress tonight.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I have not the least desire to throw any doubt upon the right hon. Gentleman's account of what happened to-night; but the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that it is absolutely impossible to get this clause tonight, if on account of nothing else but the 5th sub-section. ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to look at Sub-section 5, apart from all other matters, they will perceive that it contains much that needs very great improvement, and that it will take a very long time to discuss after we have got through the intervening Amendments. Clearly it is the feeling of the House that we should not meet to-morrow; but as we shall not meet tomorrow, I think the right hon. Gentleman will consider it reasonable that we should not adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess without any opportunity being given to us for some of those discussions which always take place on a Motion for Adjournment. [Mr. W, H. SMITH: Hear, hear!] I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that statement. That being the case, and it being impossible to take the whole clause, would it not be more reasonable now.—[Interruption.]—If hon. Gentlemen think they are going to get the clause to-night I can assure them that they are hoping for a physical and moral impossibility. Would it not be more reasonable, I say again, to accede to the Motion to report Progress, and have the discussion on the Motion for Adjournment, which always takes place when that Motion is made, to-night instead of to-morrow afternoon?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am really vary sorry not to be able to accept the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, which I am sure was intended to be conciliatory; but I think I am not unreasonable in asking that further progress should be made with this Bill. The Government intend to postpone Subsection 4, and when we reach Sub-section 5, I do not think it will be necessary to discuss it at very great length, at any rate, to such a length that the Committee would be prevented from coming to any conclusion upon it. At all events, we have gone so far that I think we ought to make some effort on the eve of the holidays to complete at least as much of our work as will satisfy the country. [Laughter.] I say at least so much of our work as will satisfy the country that we are discharging our duty as legislators.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

As I asked a Question at the commencement of the sitting of the House, and as there seems to be some difference of opinion as to the terms in which the pro- posal for Adjournment was made, I, perhaps, may be allowed to state what took place. Under ordinary circumstances, I should not do so, as it was a private communication; but still, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), which is perfectly correct so far as it goes, and after the statement of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), it is only right that the Committee should know what actually took place. I was sitting in my place this afternoon when I was asked to go out and speak to the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury. He said to me he believed there was a desire—for the sake I believe of the officials of the House—that the Adjournment should take place to-night. He ask me whether I thought Gentlemen on this side of the House would assent to it. I said that they probably had certain observations to make on the Motion for Adjournment; but that if that Motion were made at a reasonable hour, I thought it possible that they would assent. I came back and spoke to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and they suggested 11 o'clock. I said that that was rather early, under the circumstances, and I further said—"Suppose we say about 12 o'clock." I then went out and spoke to the Patronage Secretary for the Treasury, who seemed to think 12 rather early, and suggested 12.30. I said there was very little difference between us, and therefore we would say between 12 o'clock and 12.30. It was in deference to the wishes of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Benches and their Supporters that I asked the question. Certainly I am bound to say—when I am challenged in this way—that the proposal did come through the ordinary channels of communication.

Question again proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

A distinct statement has been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). This involves the good faith of the Government.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I rise to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman says this involves the good faith of the Government. I say it does no such thing.

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is not a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not a point of Order; but it is usual to allow any Member of the House to give an explanation.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I wish to recall to the Committee the statement I made when the Question was asked of me at half-past 5 o'clock. I then stated distinctly the conditions upon which I should be prepared to move the Adjournment of the House. I do not call in question any impressions which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may have entertained; but I am bound by what I say in the House. I am sure it will be for the convenience of Parliament that only such engagements as are made by a Minister in the House should be the only engagements recognized and adhered to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think that when a Member of the Government comes to us and says—"Will you, in the interest of the officers of the House, agree to so and so?" and we say "Yes," faith should be kept with us. We, personally, are really foregoing a great deal. We are foregoing a discussion to-morrow upon the imprisonment of Father Keller, a matter of vital importance to us; and we are also foregoing a discussion as regards Lord Ashbourne sitting in the Court of Appeal. I am very glad that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) is now in his place. I have found him invariably courteous, and anxious to deal with his opponents in a most considerate manner; but I must say I knew nothing of this proposal until it was conveyed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and when it was so conveyed, I said—"We will not agree to give you the Adjournment to-night, unless you agree to move to report Progress early." It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said—"We must see what progress is made;" but there is nothing inconsistent in that with the facts. I maintain that if the usual channels of communication are to be poisoned at their source, and you cannot rely on private communications made by the Members of one Party to the Members of another Party, you might as well give up alto- gether all the decencies and amenities of Parliament. [Ironical cheers.] I am not proud of them. I do not care a jot for them. we do not care what you do with your own. But I maintain that you must play a game according to the rules of the game. If in playing the game, you send one of your men to us with a particular proposal, and we accept it, that proposal, good or bad, ought to be respected just as you would respect a flag of trace. We shall hear from the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) whether we have misunderstood the message conveyed to us. Certainly, we agreed to forego a sitting to-morrow out of consideration for the Officers of the House. We thought that, by sitting a bit late to-night, we could obtain the explanation we wanted, and thus save the Officers of the House coming down to-morrow simply for the Adjournment. At the time this agreement, or disagreement, was made, there was not a single word said about getting the clause to-night.

MR. W. H. SMITH

When I answered the Question at the commencement of the Sitting I distinctly said that was the condition.

MR. T. M. HEALY

In the language of the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), the right hon. Gentleman's words have gone to the printer. What we understood the First Lord of the Treasury to convoy was, that he hoped the clause would be passed to-night in the regular order of discussion. But surely, Sir, when we have given up the entire belly of the clause—if I may use that expression—the Intimidation Section, which took three or four nights' discussion, if it did not take a week's, in 1882, you ought to call that fair discussion. The Government have got numbers on their side, and I have no doubt we shall be ousted out of what we consider to be an honourable understanding, and the result will be, you will discuss this matter for some time. There will be no satisfaction; you will not get the clause which is the main object of the Government; you will meet to-morrow, and bring down the Speaker, his clerks, and the entire staff of 50 or 60 men; -while, perhaps, the Gentlemen who are now howling us down will take the 2 o'clock train to the country.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS) (Kent, St. 992 Augustine's)

As a misunderstanding appears to have arisen in this matter, perhaps I may state what took place. It was represented to me that Members on both sides of the House were desirous not to come down to-morrow simply to vote for the adjournment of the House, as was the case at Easter. I stated that I could make no arrangement with any hon. Members on that point, but that any arrangement which was come to must be come to across the floor of the House. I suggested that a Question upon the point should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) from the other side of the House, and I also intimated that I believed the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly prepared to assent to any such proposal providing fair pro-gross be made to-night with the Bill. I believe I have stated exactly what took place, and I am sorry there should have been any misunderstanding.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will not bear me out in the statement that I had not made any proposal of any sort or kind to him when he beckoned me out of the House and suggested to me I should ask hon. Gentlemen behind me whether they would agree, on the terms suggested, to the Adjournment being moved to-night?

MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS

I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman spoke upon this subject, and, therefore, I am not quite certain what he said. It was quite correct that he did not come to me and ask me to make this arrangement. I asked him if he could bring out the Leader of the Party below the Gangway, in order that I could ascertain whether the intimation conveyed to me came directly from headquarters.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 263: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 175.) [1.10 A.M.]

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

I now claim to move, "That the Question, 'That the words from "within," in line 37, to the words "any part thereof," in line 39,' be now put."

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

Mr. Courtney, I rise to a point of Order. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to move that the words— Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof. What I wish to submit to you, Sir, is that this portion of the sub-section has not been discussed—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—not a single Amendment—[Renewed cries of "Oh, oh!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

That no Amendment has yet been proposed to it, that no discussion has yet taken place upon it, and that, in accordance with the ruling you gave some nights ago, the closure is not to be applied until all Amendments—[Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Until all Amendments which raise any point worthy of discussion have been discussed.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order which has been raised to-night—namely, whether it is competent to put the Question that certain words of a clause stand part of the Bill until, first and foremost, the closure has been moved to a substantial Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has raised a point of Order. What I alluded to at the beginning of the evening was this—When a Motion is before the Committee, the closure could not be applied to a Motion to insert further words lower down until the Motion before the Committee was disposed of. That is what I laid down. There is now no Motion before the Committee; but the closure has been moved immediately after the Motion to report Progress has been disposed of, and I apprehend it is possible to move the closure at this point.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I submit to you, Mr. Courtney, that, on the wording of the Closure Rule, it is not competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make this Motion. Allow me to refer you to the terms of the Rule— After a Question has been proposed, a Member rising in his place may claim to move, 'That the Question be now put;' and then it goes on— When the Motion 'That the Question be now put' has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also if a Clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair as aforesaid not having been withheld) That the Question That certain words of the Clause defined in the Motion stand part of the Clause, or That the Clause stand part of, or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or Debate. I submit to you, Mr. Courtney, that the words "When the Motion, 'That the Question be now put' has been carried," govern the whole of the paragraph.

THE CHAIRMAN

I made my first answer under a wrong impression, created, possibly, in the confusion of the Committee. I thought that the Motion to report Progress had been clôtured. If that had been clôtured, there would be no necessity for hesitation in clôturing the present Motion. I must own, however, that closure cannot be applied to a Motion to add words until it has been applied to a previous Motion. It is not a point which raises any substantial difficulty, as it is very easy to see a way to get over it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg to move that you do now leave the Chair, and I do so, Mr. Courtney, on the ground that we are confronted by a position of considerable difficulty. I submit to the Government that it is unreasonable to take the next Amendment without discussion, in view of the facts which arose in 1882. I would remind the Government of what took place in 1882. In the clause as it originally stood in the Bill the term was only six months; but when we Irish Members were all expelled from the House, Mr. Gibson—now Lord Ashbourne—moved to make it nine months. Of course, under the circumstances, no discussion was possible upon that proposal. The Government, however, now propose to make it 12 months. I would submit to them that seeing that the term was increased from six to nine months when the majority of the Irish Members were expelled from the House, it is perfectly unreasonable now to seek to make it 12. I would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member, having moved to report Progress, cannot now move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But I have made a Motion——

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon Dr. KENNY (Cork Co., S.).

MR. T. M. HEALY

I say I have made a Motion——

THE CHAIRMAN

And I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that he cannot make that Motion, for he made the previous Motion that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Then, Sir, I will move that you do now leave the Chair.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I claim to move that the Question be now put.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 113: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 176.) [1.35 A.M.]

Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," put, and negatived.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I claim, Sir, to move— That the Question 'That the words—"(b.) Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof," stand part of the Clause,' he now put.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 116: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 177.) [1.50 A.M.]

Question put, That the words—'(b.) Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof,' stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 119: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 178.) [2.0 A.M.]

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

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) I rise to move the Proviso of which he has given Notice. It is to the effect that, in the carrying out of this Bill, before proceedings are instituted against any person for taking possession there must have been an actual riot or an actual assault in connection with the affair. Now, Sir, it may to some appear absolutely unnecessary to insert such a Proviso. To the English, who are accustomed to see laws administered in their own way, it may appear altogether unnecessary. But, Sir, we have experience of somewhat recent date in Ireland which shows that, during the administration of the previous law, it was not deemed necessary that there should be anything in the nature of an actual breach of the peace, or anything in the nature of a riot, or anything in the nature of an assault attended by actual bodily harm, for the purpose of enabling the police to institute prosecutions under a similar section to this. Repeatedly, during the operation of the last Crimes Act, prosecutions were instituted, and convictions were obtained before special magistrates, and men were sentenced to considerable terms of imprisonment with hard labour simply for acts of ordinary trespass. Surely it is monstrous that a mere civil act of trespass, which in this country might give rise to a civil action and to a claim for damage, if any damage was done, should be made a criminal offence in Ireland because it happens to be done in Ireland. There is no reason for that, and if hon. Members who talk about equal laws and equal administration for England and Ireland would set a good example, and show their adherence to their principles by voting in favour of my Amendment, they would do something to justify people in believing that their professions are sincere. Furthermore, the Proviso goes on to state that——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Before the hon. Member proceeds further, I must express the opinion that the latter part of the Proviso is not at all relevant to the clause. The hon. Member proposes a Proviso in these words— Provided always, That no prosecution for this offence shall be instituted by the Constabulary unless there has been an assault or rioting in the taking of such forcible possession, nor shall the Constabulary act as caretakers for any evicted house or land left without a caretaker, nor shall they specially patrol in the neighbourhood unless they apprehend some disturbance of the peace other than the mere resumption of possession, nor shall they interrogate occupiers, or in any way take side with the plaintiff or defendant in such writ of possession save to keep the peace between the parties. The Proviso should stop at the words "forcible possession."

MR. M. J. KENNY

The reason why my hon. Friend put down the remaining portion of his Proviso was this—that the Crimes Act came into force in 1882, and a Circular was issued to the Constabulary ordering them to patrol in the neighbourhood of evicted farms, and watch the proceedings of the tenants.

THE CHAIRMAN

That would be a very good reason to discuss the question on the Constabulary Vote; but it is not relevant here.

MR. M. J. KENNY

Well, I will discuss it on the Constabulary Vote, and I will now move the Proviso down to the word "possession." I have practically stated the reason for moving the Amendment, which is now a very short and simple one. It is simply to provide that something in the nature of a riot or assault must take place before a prosecution can be instituted under the section. It has repeatedly happened under the administration of the Whiteboy Acts that for simply walking about on their own land, for simply walking across their own land, men have been seized, prosecuted, and transported under the Whiteboy Acts. Under the last Coercion Act, they were sentenced to imprisonment for three months or six months. I think that if the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) were here, he would see his way to admit the reasonableness of this Proviso. I do not know what attitude the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) may assume. He may be so enamoured of the Criminal Law of Ireland that he will not let us make any change; but I should, at any rate, like him to explain why an offence which is merely a civil matter in England should be made a crime punishable with six months' imprisonment with hard labour in Ireland. I beg to propose the Proviso standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 39, after the word "thereof," to insert the words—''Provided always, That no prosecution for this offence shall be instituted by the Constabulary unless there has been an assault or riot in the taking of such forcible possession."—(Mr. M. J. Kenny.)

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

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

It is not the effect of this clause, nor is it the intention of the Government, to make anything a criminal offence in Ireland which is not a criminal offence in England. The clause refers to holding forcible possession; but if the words which the hon. Gentleman has moved were inserted, they would take out of the operation of the section most of the cases in which forcible possession is taken. As a rule, there is no riot or assault in taking forcible possession. What occurs is this. Eight or ten men may come down and, in a threatening way, take possession. Of course, under such circumstances, it would be impossible for a caretaker to resist. Two men might come down armed, and naturally the unarmed caretaker would run away at once. That is taking forcible possession. Then, suppose a man went down, broke open the doors, and walked in. That is not a riot, or an assault; but, at the same time, it is taking forcible possession. All these, which are typical cases of taking forcible possession, certainly in Ireland, would be excluded from the operation of the clause by the adoption of the hon. Member's Proviso.

MR. M. J. KENNY

What about holding possession?

MR. HOLMES

That is precisely the same thing.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

If hon. Gentlemen opposite and some hon. Members above the Gangway on this side of the House would carefully study the clause, they would come to the conclusion that, as it at present stands, the pains and penalties which will be attached to anybody—to any evicted tenant, or to any number of tenants—are simply alarming. Take the case of a tenant who is evicted in the very depth of winter, at a time when, possibly, he has no other protection against the inclemency of the weather except the cabin from which he has been evicted. We will assume the case of this man taking "forcible possession" by getting in through the window or through the roof. Would it not be monstrous, under such circumstances, to decide that that man had taken ''forcible possession?" I contend that if the Committee pass this clause without examining it very closely, and accepting a safeguard such as this Amendment would provide, they will act very harshly. I am perfectly certain the Committee would be slow to pass such a clause as this if they could trace it to its real and logical conclusion. It is all very well to be told by Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that the law is the same in England as is proposed for Ireland under this clause. But what cases of eviction have you in England? In Ireland the chronic condition of the people alternates between eviction and the workhouse. It is very possible that, under the present condition of things, evictions will be largely increased; and you propose to put it into the power of two Resident Magistrates, who have no sympathy with the people, whose training and entire surroundings make them look upon the smallest infraction of the landlords' rights as monstrous crimes—you put it in the power of these men to treat the smallest and most trivial offences as forcible possession punishable by six months' imprisonment. If, however, you accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Constabulary will not be able to institute a prosecution unless there has been an assault or riot. I appeal to the Committee not to vote on these technical definitions of legal Gentlemen on the Front Bench, but to apply their own common sense to this sub-section. If they will only do that, they will find there is nothing in this Amendment which really takes away the strength of the clause—there is nothing which will prevent the magistrate or the law punishing men who have taken forcible possession, and who have by violent means assisted the Sheriff and his officers. By the Amendment you only interpose a safeguard to prevent unfortunate people—the poorest of their class—who in many cases have been treated with exceptional cruelty and barbarity for what, after all, is a most trivial offence.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I have personal cognizance of cases which are totally opposed to the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). I had occasion, some time ago, to mention one case in this House. It was a case in which on a certain stormy night, a man got up in the cabin in which he was sheltering himself, and when he saw the house from which he had been evicted, and which he had hoped would be his own—when he saw that house suffering from the storm, he forgot for the moment that the police caretakers were located near, went to the house, and put some stones on the roof to prevent the thatch being blown away. Now, that man was actually brought before the Resident Magistrate, under this clause, for taking forcible possession, and he was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. He actually served a month's imprisonment in Tralee Gaol. In another case, an old man named Boyd, over 72 years of age, was evicted, and after his eviction, and before the nine months' term had expired, he went to Listowel, and, on the faith of a settlement, went back to his cabin without having received in writing a formal permission to do so. The police found him in possession of his house. He was prosecuted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment for it. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) talks to the Committee about bodies of armed men coming down and forcing people into possession. But no man in his senses would maintain for a moment that the case I have mentioned was a case of anything like forcible possession. I could cite cases like that by the hundred to show that there is some need for such protection as is now proposed in regard to these miserable wretches who are turned out of house and home, and to show that there is not the least necessity for visiting with the utmost severity of the law those men who merely seek their old cabins for shelter. A man who goes back into his dwelling can be summoned and fined. He can be fined every time he goes there, and every time his wife or children are found there. Surely it is sufficient punishment for those miserable creatures to be summoned and to have cumulative fines imposed upon them. The law, as it stands, is what I call coercion made easy. Surely the operation of the ordinary law is enough for the Government in such cases as these.

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

I had thought, Sir, that if we were to have expressions of humanity from any Members of the Tory Party at any time, this would have been the occasion upon which we should have heard them. I should like to put in plain language to Tory Members what they are now going to vote for if they reject this Amendment. When unfortunate wretches are turned out on the roadside with their 'wives and children, if the inclemency of the weather renders it absolutely necessary to take shelter in their old huts, no other shelter being obtainable, the mere fact of their taking the hasp off the door and going back, if it is only to put the women back, renders them liable to severe punishment. Cases have occurred in which, for the sake of sheltering shivering women and children from the winter's snow, an old hut has been re-entered, and the police have taken up the man and sent him to gaol and to the plank bed. Is it too much to expect that, under such circumstances as these, miserable people, with no place under which to lay their heads, should have the poor protection we now seek to obtain for them? I ask you, who are comfortable in your beds at night, is it too much to ask that you should accept this Amendment? And when they go back you call it taking forcible possession. In God's name, is this a House of human beings? Are we in Ireland to be treated like dogs? If, in our poverty, we are unable to pay the miserable rents exacted of us, is the mere fact of taking the hasp off the door of the house that we have ourselves built, or that has been built by our fathers—is the mere fact of taking the hasp off the door in order to put back a shivering wife or a shivering child out of the winter's snow, to subject us to the punishment you would inflict under this clause of 12 months' hard labour? What was done by Lord Ashbourne in 1882, when we Irish Members were out of the House, was one of the most miserable things ever perpetrated in this House. When we were out, Lord Ashbourne, behind our backs, moved to make it nine months' imprisonment instead of six months'. And now what does this Tory Government do? They say they are acting in accordance with the precedent of 1882, and yet they make it 12 months. You have been reminded that you have the ordinary law to fall back upon. You can put these men in gaol for trespass. You can proceed against their children for trespass. You can take them up before the magistrates, who are the landlords of the locality, or the landlords' agents. Do have some little humanity in your hearts. I would say a word for the ordinary magistrates of Ireland. When cases come before them in which wretched men are prosecuted for putting their cold and starving women back in their cabins for a night's shelter their hearts are moved, but the Resident Magistrates commit men to prison for it. We hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) defending the action of the Government on the ground that men come down in crowds to put these people, by force of arms, into their dwellings. But if it is merely the case of a man taking the hasp off his own door, in order to put back his wife into his miserable, unfurnished, almost roofless cabin, for the sake of keeping her and her children from the wind and rain, where is the force of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? Have you wives and children of your own? Can you feel no pity for these children? This clause does not prevent wrong being done even when a question of title is raised. A question of title may be raised, a suit may be entered, and a decision may be ultimately arrived at, as in the case of Father Keller, in which, on Saturday last, it was decided that the imprisonment was illegal. I would beseech the Committee to consider these points. Surely if they will take into consideration all the matters that we have brought under their attention they will give some play to human feeling. Can you not see that it would be sufficient to put this clause in operation where force is used to regain possession of a house and holding? It is useless to appeal to the Irish Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), but surely an appeal of this kind cannot be lost upon Tory Gentlemen who have a duty to their consciences and to their constituents. I have here a case that occurred in 1882. It was published in 1883, before the Act got into working order. It says that a large number of men surrounded a dwelling-house, under the impression that the tenant and his family, who had been evicted, were in the habit of visit- ing it at night as a place of shelter. These men—they were policemen—searched the place, but did not find the man there. The wife and children were found sheltering in the house, but the man was spending the night on the mountain side. My God, is it not enough to turn the man out? Is it not enough that the man should spend his nights upon the bleak mountain side, but you must needs send him to prison for giving his wife the only shelter he can find for her—a cabin which was his own, and which is used by no one else?

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I have seen men and women with families of little children, this winter and last winter, in the midst of some of the most wretched weather that we have known for years, turned out of places in which they have lived for years, and in which hon. Members opposite would scorn to put their dogs. I have seen these people living in the ditches of the bleak country-side, within sight of what were their homes.

MR. T. M. HEALY

A damned pack of assassins. [Cries of "Name, name!"]

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

Name away! name away!

MR. DILLON

No man could, for a moment, doubt that what drove those people out of their homes was absolute and unquestionable poverty. And, if that be true, who is there in this House who can deny that there are men in Ireland who have no bowels of compassion for these wretched people, and yet who have the sanction of your laws for their doings? You refuse us this small concession. The poor starving wretches who crawl into their own homes at night, or put their wives and children into their cabins, and themselves go and lie out in the ditches, you wish to have dragged off for 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Do you grant us no concession on behalf of these people? Do you give your sanction to scenes like those which have been described to you? You can weep crocodile's tears over the Glenbeigh evictions; but we who live in Ireland know that hardly a day goes by that deeds are not done as black as those of Glenbeigh. Hardly a week of my life has passed, when I have been living in Ireland, that deeds of that kind have not occurred. The Glenbeigh case became known in England by an accident; because the fool who carried out the eviction was idiot enough to pour oil on the roofs of the people's houses, that he might burn them out. What difference did it make to the people that their houses were burnt? I say it would be a mercy to these people to burn down their houses. Burn the houses if you like; but do not pass these plausible laws, which are defended by the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about armed bands taking possession. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, for one case in which these armed bands take possession of these miserable holdings, I can point out 50 cases where, instead of going with arms in their hands, these poor wretches have crawled back to their homes, unarmed, defenceless, beggared, starving, and in rags, from the ill-treatment of your laws, and wishing for nothing more than to be sheltered in their misery from the winter weather. And yet you listen to no appeal of this kind. You will have this clause put in force against these men, who come without arms in their hands. You want to be able to say to these poor wretches—"Lie in your ditches, and if you dare to creep back into your miserable hovels for a night's shelter, Parliament is going to send you to prison."

MR. T. M. HEALY

I should like to say just one word more before this Division is taken. I wish to put it to the conscience of every invividual, so that he cannot say he was voting blindfold in this matter. We have made two appeals to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We now appeal to you, sitting on this side of the House, who are their masters (the Liberal Unionists). We ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) whether he is willing to allow this clause to be inserted in its present form in the Bill? He knows that the tenants on his father's estates in the district of Lismore, in the county of Waterford, are as honest a people as there are in the entire world. Now, it is proposed that if one of those tenants is put out, and goes back to his cabin for a night's shelter—for any kind of shelter, for a dog's shelter—or even if he, without force, puts his wife and children back into the miserable hut he built himself, or where he has lived all the days of his life, he will be liable to be sent to prison. I ask, is it unreasonable that we should stand up in this House and make these appeals to men under circumstances of this kind? It is impossible; it is repugnant to the feelings of men that such appeals should be made without effect. And all I can say is that, when you on the last day are appealing for mercy to One above, I hope that you, or those of you who are opposing this Amendment, will never find it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 237: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 179.) [3.0 A. M.]

THE CHAIRMAN

The decision just arrived at rules the next Amendment, No. 96.

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

That being so, I wish to ask the Government if they have any objection to an Amendment providing that unless some question of title should arise the section should not apply? I asked a Question to-day about the case of Kevil against King-Harman. That was the case of a tenant being prosecuted for taking turf on what he said was his own bog. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) contended that it was his bog, and the magistrate insisted upon arbitrating upon the case. The case was taken to the Queen's Bench, and the magistrate's decision was ousted. Here you give absolute discretion to the magistrate. No question of title can be raised. I think the least we can get from the Government, seeing that questions of title will arise, is that the section should not apply until the disputes have been settled. I had a case the other day of a man being ousted from a wrong holding. There was a distinct question of title there. I had another case in which a Captain Fagan ousted a tenant from his holding without any right or title whatsoever. The magistrate who would be a friend of Fagan would, under this section, have given the man six months' imprisonment for going back. I think when questions of title are involved we should get the benefit of the doubt. Unless the Government mean to pass this Bill by mere brute force they will accept the words which I propose.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after the word "thereof," to insert the words, "unless a question of title is raised."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

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

I hope the Committee will consider for a few moments the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would have the effect of inciting persons to take possession of land by violence if any question of title was raised. The cases put by the hon. and learned Gentleman have nothing whatever to do with this section. If a Sheriff removes a man from land improperly, the Sheriff is liable to be sued and mulcted in heavy damages. That has nothing to do with forcible possession. Forcible possession means that a person, by employing force, takes possession of land which he has no right to take.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. [Cries of "Order!"] I repeat, he ought to be ashamed to make such a statement. [Cries of "Name!" and "Order!"] I am perfectly in Order. I say the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be ashamed to make a statement of that character in this House, in view of the fact that the cases I have mentioned occurred only the other day, and ought to be within his official cognizance. To tell me that a Court of Law is open to a man who has been evicted, a man who is nothing more than a pauper, is absurd. A man who has not a cow, or even a goat to be seized, has a right of action against Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Sheriffs! I suppose stuff of that kind is good enough to go down with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Of course, at 3 o'clock in the morning, the hour for common sense has passed by. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thinks that anything is good enough for supporters who will neither listen to argument, logic, pity, nor common sense. [Laughter.] I hope these laughs and sneers at the miseries of the poor people of Ireland will be remembered by the Chairman of Committees, to whom we must all bow. The question we are raising now is the question of the poor, the question of the evicted people, the question of the men who have nothing at all. It is not a question of taking forcible possession. Sir, I cannot use Parliamentary language to describe the statement of the right lion. and learned Gentleman. No force of any kind is required, no force is ever used, and there has not been in Ireland since 1880—I will admit that seven years ago, in the time of Mr. Forster, there were cases of taking forcible possession—since 1880 there have been no cases of taking forcible possession. I challenge the Attorney General for Ireland to put his finger upon a case of taking forcible possession for the last seven years. The Government are trading on the ignorance of the Committee, in the interest of the most contemptible class of men which ever cursed or disgraced a nation.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

Certainly, Sir, I have listened to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland with profound astonishment. I venture to appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) sitting next to him, because I know from experience that he knows that what the Attorney General for Ireland has stated is utterly wrong. Everybody who knows anything of law in this country knows that when a question of title is raised it is a universal rule that a magistrate has no jurisdiction. The Attorney General knows perfectly well that that is the rule of this country—that the moment an ejectment or turning out is challenged the jurisdiction of a magistrate ceases. And yet, forsooth, the Government get up and say that they will not make a concession which is only in conformity with the ordinary law of this country! I suppose they do so because they are anxious upon asserting and carrying out to its bitter end this cruel section. I am astonished at the tone in which this debate is conducted by the supporters of the Government. [Ministerial cheers.] You have forgotten a great deal of what you heard yesterday at St. Margaret's Church. The lesson has been thrown away on the whole of you; you know it perfectly well. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; I say it, and I say it because I mean it. I am perfectly satisfied that every hon. and learned Member opposite will agree with me in my statement of the law. Do not let anyone suppose I get up to state what I do not know. I say what I feel. When our proceedings become known out-of-doors, the country will feel you are forcing down this cruel section with all the cruelty you can put into it. Notwithstanding the appeals you have heard on behalf of the people of Ireland, you sit there unmoved, occasionally jeering and sneering at what is said. [Cries of "Order!"] The conduct of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters does them very little credit.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

I rise to a point of Order, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does nothing but talk to this side of the House, very unwarrantably, in my opinion.

MR. ANDERSON

I do not wonder the hon. Member is impatient. He and those who sit with him are tongue-tied in this debate. They are burning, I know, to speak their true feelings—to get up and repudiate the action of their own Government. I hope the Attorney General will say something upon this Amendment, because I am satisfied the Attorney General for Ireland has not placed the matter fairly before the Committee.

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

I am sorry to say I am obliged to state, most distinctly, that there is no law in England which would apply in the sense, either directly or indirectly, indicated by the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson). I regret that I should have heard such statements made under a misconception of this section. This section provides that a person may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, if he— Within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land or any part thereof. No question of title could then be raised, and no question of title which could then be raised would be any bar to any proceedings, because the question of title would have been determined under the writ of possession. There is no provision in any Statute which would allow any question of title then raised to be any bar.

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

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

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

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Your conduct is disgraceful.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Unless hon. Gentlemen are able more respectfully to restrain themselves I shall be obliged to take notice of their conduct.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

(speaking from his seat, and with head covered): Mr. Courtney, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has called me and other hon. Members "damned cowards."

THE CHAIRMAN

I heard no such expression. It is extremely awkward and inconvenient to take notice of statements which are only reported in discussion, although reported, no doubt, in perfect good faith. I hope the hon. Member, whoever he be, who is so impugned, will withdraw the statement, or disavow having made it.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

It was the hon. Member for Mid Cork.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Mid Cork, I hope, will either disavow or withdraw the statement.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

(speaking from the Cross Benches on the Ministerial side of the House): In the first place, Sir, I wish to say that, as usual, I have been misquoted. I distinctly used the words "damned co wards," and I applied them to the whole crowd of men on this side of the House. I said it, and I would say it again, only I would not be in Order; therefore I will withdraw it.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 108: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 180.) [3.20 A.M.]

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 240: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 181.) [3.30 A.M.]

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

I claim now to move the Question— That the words 'or (c) shall assault, or wilfully and unlawfully resist or obstruct, any sheriff, constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law, while in the execution of his duty, or shall assault him in consequence of such execution,' stand part of the Clause, be now put.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I have an Amendment of an important character on the Paper, which I desire to move. I would ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether I can move it? [Cries of "Order!"]

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 109: Majority 135.—(Div, List, No. 182.) [3.45 A.M.]

Question put, That the words 'or (c) shall assault, or wilfully and unlawfully resist or obstruct, any sheriff, constable, bailiff, process server, or other minister of the law, while in the execution of his daty, or shall assault him in consequence of such execution,' stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 111: Majority 133,—(Div. List, No. 183.) [4.0 A.M.]

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

I beg to move the omission of the words from "person," in line 1, page 3, to "any," in line 3, inclusive.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the word "person" to the word "any" in line 3, inclusive.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'person who shall commit any offence punishable under the Whiteboy Acts as defined by this Act,' stand part of the Clause."

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

I wish now, 10 minutes past 4 o'clock in the morning, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether he does not think sufficient progress has been made—[Cries of "No, no!"]—with this Bill in the course of this evening? I have no wish to delay the progress of the Bill; but the House has been now sitting for 12 hours, and you, Sir, yourself, have been 10 hours in the Chair. That is a great strain upon the physical and mental powers of any man, not even excepting yourself. Many of us—I for one—have been engaged in and about this House since 1 o'clock yesterday; and, inasmuch as there is other Business of importance to be taken, I think we are justified in suggesting to the Government that Progress should be now reported. In reference to the particular Amendment now before the Committee, that, of course, is moved in ac- cordance with a promise made earlier in the evening, and to it there can be no objection, especially as I understand the Government are willing to reconsider what offences under the Whiteboy Acts should be included in this clause. With reference to Sub-section 5, which is the only remaining sub-section of the clause, I think the right hon. Gentleman stated earlier in the evening that there were some Amendments worthy of discussion, and the discussion of which would take some little time. I think I may ask hon. Members to rise for a moment above the excitement and fever-heat to which they have reached. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen may jeer at that remark; but they must candidly confess that the frame of mind in which the Committee has been for some time past does not tend to a favourable and impartial consideration of Amendments. There is a fair case to ask the Government that Progress should now be reported, and that the remaining Business on the Paper should be proceeded with.

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

I fully recognize the extremely fair spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this question; but I think I also may claim to deal with the matter before the Committee in an equally fair and candid spirit. I am very sorry indeed it should have been necessary to keep hon. Gentlemen sitting here till so late an hour. I had hoped we might have got through the Business of the evening before this. There is an understanding that those words should be omitted; surely they should not be the occasion of any debate at all. The right hon. Gentleman thoroughly admits that. Then we come to Sub-section 5. There is a disposition on the part of the Government to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Amendment he has on the Paper. That being the case, and seeing that we really have got very nearly to the end of the clause, it does seem to me we should lose time, instead of gaining it, if we reported Progress now. I think that with moderation, good temper, and good feeling, we may be able to complete our work, work which I had hoped we should have completed earlier without any undue strain upon yourself, Sir, or any officers of the House. I will take no contentious Business after this clause is reported.

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

The desire of the right hon. Gentleman to be courteous we must all admit; but I did not gather from his remarks that the Government will assent to the Motion to report Progress after the omission of Sub-section 4 is agreed to. The 5th sub-section relates to matters of great importance, and, therefore, it is not right it should be forced on at this hour.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I thought I had explained myself. It appears to me to be reasonable that we should take the clause, seeing that we are prepared to meet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in the Amendment he desires to move.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my expressing myself very strongly on this subject. We feel that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) demands the consideration of the Committee, and that it is impossible at this hour (4.15)—in fact, I think it would be impossible at any hour after 12 o'clock—to do justice to such an important Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury will remember that my hon. and learned Friend drew most especial attention to this sub-section of the clause in the speech which he made on the second reading of the Bill. This has always been felt by Members on this side of the House to be one of the most contentious points in the Bill; and, therefore, I hope he will not insist upon taking the 5th sub-section this morning. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling it is important to get to a certain portion of the Bill at this Sitting; but, as regards the 5th sub-section, it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), earlier in the evening, that that was a point at which the Government might stop. The 5th sub-section stands in a very different category to the rest. If the right hon. Gentleman perseveres with the sub-section, I shall feel bound to utter the strongest protest in my power against such a proceeding, I trust the Government will not go beyond the Amendment the Chief Secretary for Ireland has just moved.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I have a suggestion to make which may possibly meet the views of the Government. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Sub-section 5 is not only novel in its character, but is of the most serious and wide-reaching character. To lay down the proposition that this Committee is to be called upon to pass into law such a provision as that, which will practically leave the entire Press of Ireland at the mercy of the magistrates, is most extraordinary, and unprecedented in the proceedings of this House. This clause has been urged through the Committee at a rate which we certainly consider to be most unjust and unfair to us. It has been the custom to discuss at considerable length, even after they have passed through Committee, clauses of such a complicated character as this; and the proposal I have to make is that if the Government can see their way to abandoning the 5th sub-section, we shall not offer any further opposition to the passing of the clause. This is a sub-section of a most extraordinary character, and, as has already been pointed out, there is an important Amendment to it on the Paper in the name of the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell), who has a claim even upon the present Government to have his Amendment discussed. Surely it is very strange the Government are in such a hurry that they will not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to move an Amendment to which he has already stated in the House he attaches the utmost importance. I think I see a way in which the difficulty can be got over, and that is by the Government agreeing to omit the sub-section. The willingness of the Government to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in the Amendment he has to the sub-section, affords us very little consolation indeed. Even with the words omitted, we should be landed in the old squabble as to the meaning of the words. The offer of the First Lord of the Treasury is quite illusory; and to enable the Government to state their views on the matter I beg to move that Progress be reported.

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

MR. W. H. SMITH

We really cannot agree to the Motion to report Progress now, whatever course may be forced upon us at a later period. The words to be omitted are words which the whole Committee desires to omit; and, therefore, it would be unreasonable that we should not at least make progress so far as their omission is concerned.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

I should like to say, in reference to the offer with regard to my Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the previous Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), which is to leave out the whole sub-section. Of course, my Amendment is based on the hypothesis—perhaps a correct one—that the Committee will reject the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Having regard to the position my hon. and learned Friend occupies in the House, and to the fact that on the second reading of the Bill he particularly stated that he meant to raise the whole Press question on this clause, I appeal to the Government not to proceed with the 5th sub-section to-night. I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has said with respect to not reporting Progress now. Let us omit the words in question, and then let the 5th sub-section stand over, so that my hon. and learned Friend may submit his Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It would be impossible for us to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—namely, that we should purchase the passing of this clause by the sacrifice of the 5th sub-section. To that sub-section we attach great importance, and we would not willingly abandon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has adverted to the fact that this sub-section is one on which the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) desires to move an Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman announced, in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, that the Amendment to which he attaches special importance raises the whole Press question. I regret as much as anybody that we are driven by the course which has been pursued by certain Gentlemen in this House to discuss anything, however trivial, at this hour of the morning (4.30); but we must, after all, choose the lesser of two evils. It may be better for us to choose to discuss matters at an hour when we would all be better in bed than to allow Public Business to be indefinitely and hopelessly prolonged.

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

I do not think the Government can properly understand the offer we make to them. We think we are making a concession in assenting to the postponement of the 5th sub-section. The Report stage undoubtedly gives the Government a great advantage, because on Report a Member is only allowed to speak once.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We promised to re-commit the Bill, if there is any alteration of any importance.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I do not think there was any desire on these Benches to oppose the Motion made by the Chief Secretary before the Motion for reporting Progress was made. We are all agreed upon the desirability of omitting atoncethe4th sub-section; what we now want is this—that the Chief Secretary should also postpone the 5th sub-section, especially in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell.) If to that question we get a simple answer—and the answer can be simple—our future course of action will be decided. We cannot think the Government wish to be so unreasonable as to press this sub-section in the absence of its chief opponent. If the Government give us a satisfactory answer as regards the 5th sub-section I have just heard that the Motion to report Progress will be withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

I gather from the few observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) that he contemplates reporting Progress after the omission of these words, because he said "whatever course we may be forced to adopt." I do not understand what the position of the Government is, because the First Lord of the Treasury plainly indicated—at least, that was the impression he conveyed to me—that the Government would be willing to report Progress at some stage before the clause was taken. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Motion to report Progress if the Government will assure us that they will report Progress after the present Amendment is disposed of, and before the 5th sub-section is taken. What I object to is that the 5th sub-section should be taken without adequate discussion, and in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). It would be a disgrace and a shame if no discussion were allowed upon such an Amendment as the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon the Paper. Before I sit down I desire to protest most earnestly against the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I absolutely deny that there has been, during this night, any obstruction whatever, or even prolongation of debate, on these Benches. I do not know what opinion may exist as to the proceedings of other nights; but I completely deny that there has been any obstruction tonight, and I have, on previous occasions, seen debates drawn out to very great lengths upon subjects of infinitesimal importance compared with the clause we have been discussing to-night. I think it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the government of Ireland, and who ought to do what he considers to be necessary in as inoffensive a manner as he can, should have used an expression which he must know he ought not to have used, and which, at all events, must inevitably make his task more difficult in Ireland. When he insults us, he will invariably find his path bestrewed with difficulties. [Laugher.] It is all very well to laugh, but man after man has broken down in the attempt to govern Ireland. It is no laughing matter at all, and it is a foolish thing, and an unwise thing, and a sad thing, to see an Irish Chief Secretary begin his task, which is no joke for any man, by sneering at and insulting the Irish Representatives.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Surely the Government might honour us with a few words in reply. An hon. Friend of mine made a mistake in regard to the Irish Chief Secretary. We know upon the authority of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour) that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) only took the position of Irish Chief Secretary because he despises the Irish soil—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: When was that said?] In this House to an hon. Member of this House.

DR. TANNER (Mid Cork)

Swallow it.

THE CHAIRMAN

I heard the hon. Member for Mid Cork make use of a most offensive observation. I call upon him to withdraw the observation.

DR. TANNER

(sitting in his place, and raising his hat): Certainly, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman will rise in his place and withdraw the observation.

DR. TANNER

(rising): Certainly, if you wish it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I rise to Order, Sir. I ask you whether the manner in which the hon. Gentleman withdraws the observation is one which is conducive to the dignity of this House? He simply says he will withdraw it if you wish it, and expresses no regret for the use of the language.

MR. T. M. HEALY

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that seeing that these are only informal matters——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Mid Cork must express his regret.

DR. TANNER

Certainly, Sir; I thought I had already clearly expressed my regret. If you wish it I withdraw.

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish the hon. Member for Mid Cork to understand that it is a duty he owes to the Committee not only to abstain from the use of offensive observations, but to apologize for the one he has just used.

DR. TANNER

Certainly, Sir.

MR. T. M. HEALY

They are not so very delicate to us, when they continue in this manner. On the point at which we have arrived we are asking for a very reasonable concession——

MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)

I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) immediately repeated the offensive expression.

ADMIRAL MAYNE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)

I beg to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for East Bradford.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I must say I was sitting immediately in front of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and was in a position to hear what he said, and I absolutely deny the (statement of the hon. Members opposite.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I am in a position, Sir, to do the same.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) himself whether he avows or disavows having repeated the expression? I must ask whether he disavows having repeated the expression?

DR. TANNER

Certainly, Sir; I rise to say——

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Cork whether he disavows having repeated the observation?

DR. TANNER

Yes, of course. There has been another mistake made by hon. Gentlemen opposite—I never said anything of the sort.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out that in the first instance no mistake was made by any hon. Member. I heard the remark myself.

DR. TANNER

Can I disavow what I did not say? I state that I did not repeat the expression, and, of course, I cannot disavow what I did not say.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

I am in a position to state exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. He was asked by an hon. Gentleman behind him to state what was the observation which he said which was considered offensive to the Committee, and for which he expressed his apologies. He told the hon. Member quietly what the observation was, and the answer he made was immediately taken up by hon. Members opposite as being a repetition of the offensive language.

THE CHAIRMAN

The matter can now come to a close.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I am afraid that this incident shows Her Majesty's Government the undesirability—in fact the hopelessness—of pretending to conduct debate in the condition in which hon. Members find themselves. I would submit that it is unfair to ask us to debate this sub-section, which places the peace of the country at the mercy of two Executive characters at so late an hour of the morning. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk amongst them-self in a loud tone in order that none of us may be heard, and they consider that they conduct debates in a reasonable way. I should consider that this Motion should be withdrawn, if we could get from Her Majesty's Government a state- ment that they do not intend to press this important sub-section to-night. I think the First Lord of the Treasury was on the point of making a concession to us when the unpleasant incident which has just terminated arose. There has been so much unpleasantness to-day that it might be desirable, after all, when you are dealing with a large Party, assisted as it is by the sympathy of other hon. Gentlemen, and when you have an Amendment on the Paper to be proposed by the late Attorney General for England, it is desirable, I say, and it is due to the position of that hon. and learned Gentleman, that you should give a little time before bringing this clause to a termination. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that after this Amendment is disposed of he would be disposed not to insist upon further progress being made with the Bill.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think it would be much more convenient if the Committee took the Business in the order in which it stands upon the Paper. If we disposed of the Amendment now before the Committee, it would then be fitting to consider the suggestion as to when the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney should be entered upon.

MR. DILLON

Under those circumstances I withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and negatived; words struck out accordingly.

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

I would now repeat my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I put it specially on the ground of what is fair to this side of the Committee, and of what is fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). I move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

I cannot say that I think the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman makes this Motion is a sufficient one. I do not want to do anything at any time, either in Committee or in the House, which appears to be unreasonable; but, surely, the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney should have been in his place. He has not been present on the Committee, unless I am very much mistaken, during the whole evening; and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite feels that the Motion the hon. and learned Gentleman has to make is an important one, I do not know anyone who is more capable of doing justice to it than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's arguments in support of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney would be as good as any which could be urged against the sub-section. It does seem to me a great misfortune that we should have now an Amendment thrown in the way of the completion of this clause. It seems to me unreasonable that a further delay should be asked for, when the Committee has fully considered the whole question, and when it is, I think, in a position to dispose of the most; important question remaining on the Paper in a very short time. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is prepared to make the Motion himself. If he does we will accept it in that way, and meet him in a reasonable manner. He is aware that on the Report stage he can move this Amendment; but I must say it is rather hard that in a full Committee, ready and disposed to enter into the consideration of these questions—["No, no!"] Well, with the exception of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I would say in a full Committee, ready and disposed to go on with the Business, I think it is hard that we should now be prevented in finishing the clause which we very reasonably asked to be allowed to finish at an early period of the evening.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I do hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will let his better nature prevail. I apprehend that the fact that the hon. and learned Member (Sir Charles Russell) is not present to move his Amendment may very well be accounted for by the extraordinary progress we have made this evening. [Laughter.] I think that is a very reasonable statement—that we have made extraordinary progress this evening. The hon. and learned Member could not have expected that we would have reached his Amendment to-night. The offer the right hon. Gentleman opposite has made with regard to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend does not meet the case at all. It is the original Amendment—the omission of the sub-section—which the whole of this side of the Committee has the strongest desire to have debated ably and fully, and without reserve, and that cannot possibly be done at 5 o'clock in the morning. Sir, I would like to appeal to the Law Officers of the Crown, to the hon. and learned Attorney General and the hon. and learned Solicitor General; I would ask them to put in a plea for their learned brother on this side, that some consideration should be shown to his position, and to the important Amendment of which he has given Notice. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the scenes of the last quarter of an hour; and I would ask him whether they are not arguments entirely in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler).

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney was not here on Friday night, when he had an Amendment on the Paper. His Amendment on that occasion was moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). There was a previous Amendment on the Paper to-night in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney; but he was not here to move it. I must say there was no reason to suppose that this Amendment would not be reached to-night; and we cannot help observing that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney has not been in the House during any part of the debate.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

It was never expected that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) would come on to-night. There is not the slightest desire on this (the Front Opposition) Bench to obstruct the Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; I repeat that statement. It is not reasonable to expect hon. Gentlemen to be here to move Amendments when it was not expected that so much progress would be made. But the force of our appeal lies in this—that we consider this sub-section one of the most important parts of the Bill—one that ought to be fully debated, and debated at an hour when the attention of Members can be given to it fairly, and when the attention of the public can be properly directed to the matter. It is because the sub-section is so important, and because we entertain such strong feelings with regard to it, that we do most strongly urge on Her Majesty's Government—certainly on the Leader of the House—that it would not be fair to a large section of the Members of this House if this sub-section were pressed at this hour of the morning. I think it would be impossible to take this sub-section in the present state of feeling in the House without a very lengthened space of time being devoted to its consideration. Upon this part of the Bill there arise a great number of important questions with regard to the Press, and we do once more beg hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to recognize the fairness of our appeal and the injustice that would be done to the opinions and feelings of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House if this question were not fully debated, and debated in such a manner that the public may know what takes place.

THE CHAIRMAN

It may, perhaps, influence the conduct of Members of the Committee if I point out to them that it would not now be proper to put the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. The first word "any" in Sub-section 5 has been struck out, and the words that remain to be dealt with are— Person who, by words or acts, shall incite, solicit, encourage, or persuade any other person to commit any of the offences hereinbefore mentioned. The adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney would not make sense. Therefore, it is impossible to deal with the hon. and learned Member's proposal.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Even supposing that the word "any" is allowed to remain, could it not be struck out on the Report stage? It so happens that in the clause we have just passed a word remains which is rather an absurdity—which will have to be struck out on Report. So can this word "any" He struck out. I would add this suggestion —you are going to deal with the question of the Whiteboy Acts on the Report stage with any Amendments that you may consider necessary. Then I would propose that you should take this clause now, omitting Sub-section 5, as well as Sub-section 4, and put them in on the Report stage, recommitting the Bill then. That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable proposition. It would get the Committee out of the difficulty into which it appears to have got. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself to those in charge of the Bill. I make a suggestion that will give the Government practically everything they want. They can put those words in on the Report stage.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope we shall not have to re-commit the Bill in regard to the Whiteboy Acts, for I am of opinion that we shall find Sub-section 4 quite sufficient. Would it not meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite if the Government were to give a pledge that the debate on this question on Report shall be brought on early—before dinner in the evening, at a time when, if necessary, an important debate can take place on the subject? Would not that meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends around him?

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

The view we take upon this matter is this—I was obliged to put it on what I may call the ordinary grounds of courtesy, which have often had considerable weight on both sides of this Table in the management of Public Business. Our appeal on those grounds has been in vain. I now put it on the ground of public principle. I contend that it is impossible for anyone to debate a question of this kind at 5 o'clock in the morning. I appeal to the oldest Member of the House of Commons to say whether he ever knew an important debate to take place at this hour of the morning. ["Yes!"] Someone says "Yes." I suppose it is some hon. Member who is here in the House for the first time, and he is ready to give us the benefit of his experience of two or three months. I know something about all-night scenes in this House. They reflect no credit on the House of Commons or Parliamentary institutions, and I, for one, am very sorry that there ever should be any necessity for such a thing. Where All-night Sittings have taken place, their object has been to arrive at the definite and formal conclusion to which the House has practically arrived many hours before. The question now before the Committee has never been raised in any one of the debates which has previously occurred, and I am quite ready to admit to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there has been many questions that have been debated over and over again in this House. I do not deny that for a moment; but I say, as an historic fact, that the question of the operation of this Bill on the Press of Ireland has never been debated at all. I ask in that fairness which is due from a majority to a minority, and in the fairness which I am sure has always characterized the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House, that so grave and important a discussion as this should not be brought on at 5 o'clock in the morning.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think, perhaps, the best solution of the question is to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). We will strike the sub-section out of the Bill now, with the object of introducing it on Report. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney can then be considered. I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be content that the 2nd clause should be disposed of in this way.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Will you recommit the Bill?

MR. W. H. SMITH

That will be the form in which we will then take it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Re-commit the Bill?

MR. W. H. SMITH

The proposal is to strike this sub-section out of the Bill now, and to bring it up again on Report. That I understand is the arrangement.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

With regard to this question of re-committing the Bill, I see the force of the hon. and learned Member's argument; but I would ask him to see what the position of the matter is. If the Government pursued a different course, and if we were in a majority, all that we could do would be to strike this sub-section out of the Bill. We could do nothing more, and then the Government might again propose to bring it in on Report, when we should have to discuss it again. I am bound to say that I think the offer the right hon. Gentleman has made is a fair one, and I would ask the Committee to accept it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 5.

Question, "That Sub-section 5 stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

There are a number of Amendments on the Paper which have not been formally smothered as yet.

MR. DILLON (Mayo. E.)

Before you put the clause, Sir—I do not intend to raise a discussion at this hour of the morning, but I rise for the purpose of protesting against the course which is being taken. This clause is of enormous importance; and to say that we are to pass it as we are compelled to do now, practically sub silentio, is most unreasonable.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 103: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 184.) [5.0 A.M.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday 7th June.