CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 07 August 1888 vol 329 cc1856-945

Bill, as amended, considered.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEW'S) (Birmingham, E.)

said, that on Thursday last, shortly before the conclusion of the Committee stage upon the Bill, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) referred to certain Amendments on the Paper which, he said, he was advised were of great importance, and which dealt with the matter of compelling witnesses to attend, and of punishing them for not attending. The Government did not entirely share the hon. Member's views on that point; but they had every desire that the witnesses should be compelled to attend, and that they should be punished for not attending, and he therefore proposed to add to the Bill a new clause, in the terms of the clause of which the hon. Member for Cork had given Notice in Committee on the Bill, but which was not reached, owing to the special Rule. The clause was as follows:— If any person, having been served with a summons under this Act, shall fail to appear according to the tenour of such summons, the Commissioners shall have power to issue a warrant for the arrest of such person.

Clause (Failure to appear,)—(Mr. Secretary Matthews,)—brought up, and read the second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

argued that clearly the Commission should have power to punish not merely in the case of non-attendance, but also for refusing to answer questions upon examination.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

said, the Home Secretary had appeared that day in quite a novel character. He, who had hitherto appeared as engaged in objecting to every Amendment, now appeared as the Mover of one. Not only was that a new character for the right hon. Gentleman, but, in order to carry it out, he had appropriated to himself this Amendment, which, in itself, he regarded as a very reasonable one, which was on the Paper in the name of his (Mr. Sexton's) hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy) when the Bill was in Committee, though his hon. and learned Friend was prevented from moving it. It also stood on the Paper that day in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). Why should there be such a change in the attitude of the Government, who in Committee refused to insert or strike out even a comma? They said they would have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. He (Mr. Sexton) thought it was rather strange that the Home Secretary should thus appropriate an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of another hon. Member, and put it down in his own name. He would tell the House the reason why the Home Secretary moved these Amendments. On Monday in last week, when the House was going into Committee on the Bill, an article appeared in The Times, in which it was said— There can be no objection in principle to the adoption of other Amendments of which Mr. Healy, Mr. Redmond, and Mr. Arthur O'Connor have given Notice, and which generally tend to enlarge the powers of the Commissioners over witnesses, and to secure an enforcement of penalties. If these are so drafted as to accomplish their ostensible purpose, and if the Commissioners have not the powers referred to under the provisions of the Bill, there is no reason why the House should not accept them without too curiously considering their origin and real objects. That was the declaration of Mr. Walter a week ago, and he thought it was necessary that the House should be informed that this Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman because Mr. Walter had given it his sanction. Still, he did not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have moved the clause himself, and not have waited to assent to it when proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford.

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

said, it was the invariable practice for the Government's Amendments to be put first on the Paper when a Bill was considered on Report; and the clause had been put down in the name of his right hon. Friend in order to insure its being taken first. That was the sole and only reason why his right hon. Friend moved the Amendment, of which they had been in favour from the first. He might add that during the Committee there were Amendments which the Government had always intended to accept, and there were some down for that evening which he thought the Government would see their way to accept.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read the second time, and added.

New Clause— (Punishment for neglect to attend.) Any person summoned to attend before the Commissioners who shall refuse, neglect, or fail to attend in pursuance of any summons, shall, notwithstanding the dissolution of the Commission, be liable to punishment for contempt of the High Court of Justice in England, on the motion of any person aggrieved by such refusal, neglect, or failure."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

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

said, he felt bound to contend that the clause was too narrow. It did not go far enough by any means. Attendance in Court was a very small matter; but it was well known that very serious questions would arise upon the production of evidence, as well as upon the attendance of witnesses. It went no further than to provide for the attendance of a person before the Commission, and left out of sight the more important duty of compelling such person to give evidence. A witness might attend in pursuance of the summons of the Commission, and decline to produce certain evidence of vital importance to some of the parties interested. For instance, it did not deal with such cases as that of The Times, in regard to which it had been already stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General, in his opening in "O'Donnell v. Walter," that under no circumstances would the defendants in that action produce certain evidence, which would be absolutely required if these matters were to be accurately tested. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they would rather lose the cause. The Commission would be absolutely restricted by the clause. He did not think it was fair that any restriction should be put upon the power of the Commissioners in that direction. There was a second point in this extraordinary Amendment which had been drafted by the Legal Members of the Government. It provided that any person refusing to attend should be liable to punishment for contempt "on the motion of any person aggrieved." Thus any person coming before the Court and asking them to exercise their power, would be called upon in the first instance to prove that he had been aggrieved. How could anyone prove that he had been damaged by the non-production of evidence. Those were the two faults he found with the Amendment in its present shape. It was an absurdity, and the clause would be practically inoperative.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he wished to know what was the object of the words "on the motion of any person aggrieved?" It was a novel principle that on questions of contempt, the High Court could only be set in motion by the action of somebody else. As the clause stood, unless a motion were made by a person aggrieved, the Court would have no power to exercise the authority the clause sought to give them. It could do nothing on its own initiative in the matter of punishment, but must wait to be moved by someone applying to it. If it was, he most decidedly objected to it. Surely that could not be the intention of the Government?

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, that the power contained in the clause was not only against persons affected by these charges, but against absolute strangers who might be summoned by a process which had no legal efficacy, and who might not be subjects of this nation. He wished to know, whether it was meant that a person aggrieved might apply to the High Court to punish these people for what could not be a legal offence?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

said, the essence of the clause was to summon persons without the intervention of any party. But who was the aggrieved person?

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

said, the latter part of the clause only was inadmissible.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, that nobody could show that he was aggrieved without showing what evidence would have been given.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

said, the Government were not responsible for the wording of the clause. There were two points raised. First, what would be the power of the Commission in case a witness refused to answer a question, or evaded service of the summons, or went abroad? Next, what action would be taken after the rising of the Commission, for contempt committed while the Commission was sitting?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that hon. Members below the Gangway were hard to please. He had placed on the Paper two Amendments which hon. Members Opposite thought vital. This Amendment was word for word the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Yet, as soon as these Amendments were on the Paper, hon. Members began to criticize them. The danger pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) was, that a person might evade service, or stay abroad till the Commission came to an end, and would thus escape punishment. He (Mr. Matthews) had copied the clause as it was. Hon. Members ought to have asked the hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) about it, because it originally stood in his name. Then, as to the High Court of Justice taking action, he would point out that the Commission while sitting would itself act, and when defunct the High Court could not itself take action, hut, of course, some one must inform the Court. Some affidavit and evidence of service of notice on the offender must be proved. He was, however, willing to amend the clause by deleting the words after "England," and substituting therefor the words "on the motion of any person who has appeared at the inquiry before such Commissioners."

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

suggested that the clause should be amended in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he imagined that the clause would not meet the case of a man who had failed to appear before the Commission until a fortnight prior to its dissolution. The man might have only a fortnight's imprisonment, seeing that the Commission would only have power to inflict that punishment.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that the point was covered by the second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cork, which he was not prepared to accept—namely, And any punishment of imprisonment inflicted by the Commission shall not come to an end by reason of the termination of the Commission until the high Court of Justice shall so order. He admitted that the concluding words in the clause, "on the motion of any person aggrieved by such refusal, neglect, or failure," were not the best possible words; but they were not his own. As he had said, they were those of the hon. Member who drew the clause. He would be willing, in order to make the clause clearer, to substitute these words in their place—"On the motion of any person who has appeared at the inquiry before the sub-Commissioners." That would remove the vagueness as to the "aggrieved person."

MR. SEXTON

said, he took if that the Court could not inflict punishment on its own Motion according to the wording of the clause. It must be according to the motion of an aggrieved party. He suggested that it should be open to any person who had been called upon to attend the inquiry to make such a motion. He apprehended that there were persons in England who could prove that the letters alleged to be written by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) were forgeries, and it was of immense importance that those persons should be compelled to appear before the Commission. A long time must elapse between the time the Act was passed and the services of summonses, and he suggested that in the meantime it should be in the power of persons interested in the inquiry to bring under the notice of the Commissioners that they had reasonable cause to believe that certain persons whose evidence was considered material were about to leave the country, and that the Commissioners should have authority to prevent such persons from leaving the United Kingdom. The departure of two or three persons in that way might have the effect of rendering abortive the whole inquiry as to the genuineness of the letters. It was not the mere non-attendance, but the failure to give full and free disclosure that should be punished.

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

said, he wanted to know if, under the clause, the Commission would have power to compel the proprietors of The Times to state from what source and from whom they had received the forged letters?

MR. MATTHEWS

was understood not to dissent.

MR T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had put upon the clause the interpretation of a full and free disclosure, and not mere attendance to be examined.

In reply to Mr. PARNELL,

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it was clear that the power to commit to prison did not apply to a Commission abroad.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. MATTHEWS, Clause amended by the addition of the words "who has appeared at the inquiry before such Commissioners," in lieu of "aggrieved by such refusal, neglect, or failure."

MR. PARNELL

, in moving to add the following Amendment:— Or who shall refuse to make a full and true disclosure touching all the matters in respect of which he is examined, said, his objection to the clause was that, as it stood, it made no provision for the punishment of a person who appeared before the Commission and who refused to be examined, and who, at the expiration of the Commission, would necessarily be discharged from punishment. Take the case of Mr. Walter, or any other person belonging to The Times, who was defendant in the recent action. These gentlemen, through the mouth of their counsel, announced that they should refuse to give up to the Court the names of those from whom they obtained these alleged forged letters. They might possibly adopt the same course before the Commission, and, if so, he and his Friends would be placed in a serious position. In order to disprove the letters they would be confined to a large extent to the testimony of expert evidence and the denial on oath, and all the surrounding circumstances of the publication of the letters and how they were forged and who forged them would be excluded. What would be the remedy of the Commission? They would have power to imprison Mr. Walter for the remaining period that the Commission might sit, which might be only a few days. There would then practically be no remedy whatever against the refusal of Mr. Walter to do his best to facilitate the course of justice and the ascertainment of truth. The Commission might send him to gaol for a week; but he would probably not consider that very serious. Whereas against himself (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues, who would be examined in the earlier stage of the inquiry with regard to allegations perhaps months or years before the question of the forged letters was reached, if they committed what the Commissioners might deem to be contempt of Court, the Commission would have the power of putting them in gaol during months or years, as long as the Commission lasted. He was amazed to hear that the Home Secretary had announced that he was not going to accept this first Amendment; he should have thought the Government, having had a lucid interval, would have seen the necessity for at once clearing themselves from the grave imputations which had been cast upon them during the progress of the debates on the second reading—charges practically amounting to this, that they were in collusion with the editor and the proprietor of The Times, while the policy they had deliberately adopted of shaping this thing in every point, in every detail, in every condition so as to be most favourable to The Times and most unfavourable to himself and his Colleagues, was to be persisted in as regards the question of the punishment of offending witnesses. Now, it was of the utmost importance to the Irish Members that the Commission should have full power to compel a full disclosure of all matters on which a witness was being examined. For if this power did not exist, they might lose the power of compelling The Times to state who supplied the letters or of investigating the history of these documents. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, they would add one more proof to the overwhelming testimony which they had already given during the course of these proceedings upon the Bill that they wished to handicap the Irish Members and to place them at a disadvantage, while giving every advantage to their opponents. He would, therefore, propose to insert in the clause the words of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In the Clause, line 2, after the word "summons," to insert the words "or who shall refuse to make a full and true disclosure touching all the matters in respect of which he is examined."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Clause."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not help regretting that the hon. Member for Cork, even at that stage of the Bill, should have thought fit to repeat absolutely groundless statements with reference to the position of the Government in this matter—statements, moreover, which had the additional disadvantage of being utterly irrelevant to the question under discussion. The hon. Member would have done a great deal better by refraining from such a course. He (Mr. Matthews) could not, as he had said, accept this first Amendment, which had been framed evidently without considering what the clause was about. The clause was one inserted to prevent a person who had been guilty of a contempt against the Commission escaping punishment altogether, because the Commission could not get at him during their period of existence. The hon. Member proposed to put in words which amounted to this, that the High Court of Justice was to treat as a contempt against them the refusal to make a full disclosure before the Commission.

MR. PARNELL

But read the clause by the light of my second Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not read a clause by the light of something else; he must read it as it stood. The Amendment was wholly unnecessary. As the Bill was drafted, the failure to make a full disclosure in answer to questions that were asked would be a contempt of the Commission, and in the case the hon. Member supposed—namely, Mr. Walter saying, "I have produced these letters, but I will not tell you who gave them to me"—that would be a contempt of the Commission, and under Clause 2, Sub-section 1, paragraph 3, the Commission had ample power to send Mr. Walter to prison for contempt in refusing to answer questions put to him. It would, therefore, be ridiculous to relegate that contempt to another Court after the Commission expired; because the man who failed to make a full disclosure was there before the Commission and the offence was committed in their presence. As to the second point—namely, the refusal to make a true disclosure—it was open to the Commission to refuse to give such a witness a certificate of true disclosure. The hon. Member proposed that without trial, without evidence, and on the mere impression that the witness had not made a true disclosure, such witness was to be committed then and there as for perjury. He could not accept the Amendment. The object of the hon. Member would be gained by another Amendment he had give Notice of, which the Government were prepared to accept.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

gave it as his opinion, having looked at the context of the Bill, that inasmuch as the Government had consented to accept the second Amendment of the hon. Member, the present one was unnecessary. A non-full disclosure would be a contempt committed before the Commission of which they would have full cognizance. He would take occasion to suggest that the Government might do well to adopt a suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) to insert the word "said" before Commission.

MR. PARNELL

said, that after the opinions which had been expressed by the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell), he was convinced that his object was already attained by the Bill as it stood. He asked leave, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made.

MR. PARNELL

said, he would now move his second Amendment—to add at the end of Mr. Secretary Matthews's new clause— And any punishment of imprisonment inflicted by the Commission shall not come to an end by reason of the termination of the Commission until the High Court of Justice shall so order. He would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was quite clear that the Amendment would apply only to the case of a person refusing to attend, and would also apply to the case of a person refusing to give evidence; because it bad, he said, been suggested to him that the Court might hold that it might be held only to apply to the case mentioned in the clause at the end of which the Amendment came, and that there might be some risk that it would not be taken in connection with the other clause, which had reference to a failure to appear?

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "and any punishment of imprisonment inflicted by the Commission shall not come to an end by reason of the termination of the Commission, until the High Court of Justice shall so order."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would accept the Amendment, but he thought that the proper place for these words would be as the last Sub-section of Clause 2, dealing with the power of the Commissioners to commit to prison for contempt.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he would suggest that the word "and" at the beginning should be omitted, and the words "for any contempt" be added. He thought that that would meet the difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— For any contempt, any punishment of imprisonment inflicted by the Commission shall not come to an end by reason of the termination of the Commission until the High Court of Justice shall so order."—(Sir Charles Russell.)

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

MR. CHANCE

asked, what would happen if the Commission had issued a warrant, but the person was not caught before the Commission came to an end?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

said, he would point out that that case came within the provisions of the section.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order that the words might be moved in the place suggested by the Home Secretary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

, in moving, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clause:— In case the evidence before the Commissioners shall, in their opinion, be sufficient, they shall have power to commit any person for trial on any criminal charge before the Court in England, Scotland, or Ireland having jurisdiction to try that charge, said, he thought that the House hardly realized what a tremendous engine a Commission of this nature was, if it was to be left untrammelled in its powers of punishment by any rules of procedure. He would instance the Commission appointed to deal with the crime of Thugging in India, and contended that the Bill, as it stood, was more sweeping and severe than the Act appointing the Thug Commission. That Act was specific, and dealt with existing crime; but the Bill was to go back into the history of past crime, and apply to crime of all kinds. By the Amendment, he would bring the Bill into conformity with the plan adopted in India, which was very much better. His object in making the proposal was to have it made clear whether the Commission was to be an inquisitorial or a judicial one.

Clause (Power to commit,)—(Sir George Campbell,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now road a second time," put, and negatived.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

, in rising to move the following Clause:— Nothing in this Act shall relieve the printers or publishers of any libel or libels published before the passing of this Act from any civil or criminal liability, said, that under the Bill a man might incriminate himself or others and he would get an indemnity. But it should be remembered that this was not entirely a case of "The Times v. Parnell and others;" it was also a case of "Parnell and others v. The Times." Mr. Walter might make a full and true disclosure with respect to the letters, and if he did he was free from all penalty under the law of libel. He was not assuming that The Times published what it knew to be forgeries. But supposing it was proved to the hilt that the letters were really forgeries, not merely by the statement of Mr. Walter and his friends, but by other evidence, yet, as Mr. Walter might say he had received the letters from A and published them believing them to be genuine, he was to be absolved from all consequences. The hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) had been accused by The Times—it was part of Parnellism and Crime—of having proposed a resolution with regard to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, but ignoring the murder of Mr. Burke. The hon. Member for North Wexford wrote a letter to The Times stating that he did not know at the time of Mr. Burke's death; but The Times did not insert the letter, and when accused of the fact said they did not believe the hon. Member. Was his hon. Friend to have no remedy? He submitted that if this new clause was not accepted it would be felt that The Times and its allies and associates, the Government, doubted very much whether with regard to the letters they had a good case, and this Bill, arranged after interviews—he would say no more—with Mr. Walter and between the Cabinet and the counsel for The Times, was brought forward, pushed through, and almost forced down the throats of hon. Members simply to protect The Times from the legal consequences of its own malpractices. He hoped the Government would free itself from such an accusation by accepting his clause.

Clause (Publishers of libel not to be exempt from liability,)—(Mr. Labou- chere,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it required all the assurance of the hon. Member for Northampton to make such a proposal. Parnellism and Crime had been published for some years, and there had been ample opportunity for enforcing the civil or criminal liability of The Times; but hon. Members had not brought their action, and would not bring it. Now, forsooth, the hon. Member for Northampton had the assurance to tell the House that this Bill had been put forward only because hon. Members had obstinately refused to enforce the Civil and Criminal Law against The Times, was put forward to save The Times from its liability. The hon. Member thought it was perfectly fair that hon. Members should hold back to see whether by the application of the somewhat severe screw of this Commission they could extract anything which would make them feel a little more confident. But if it were proposed that information should be extracted from hon. Gentlemen opposite with a view to proceedings afterwards, it would be said—"What a monstrous interference! You are setting up a powerful engine to compel people to incriminate themselves and you make them liable to penalties afterwards."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was given to understand that every Nationalist Member on that side of the House who was interested were perfectly ready and willing to be excluded from the indemnity clause applied to The Times.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, there was no Amendment to that effect. He did not suppose that any person seriously asked that you should propose a Bill by which men were obliged to incriminate themselves, and then say you would take advantage of machinery of that sort in order to fix on them afterwards a civil or criminal liability. It was absurd to propose that one party to this dispute should remain liable to all the consequences of its past acts, and that the other party should be able, by a full disclosure, to shield themselves from all the consequences of their acts.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) had stated that the Government were adverse to instituting criminal proceedings against the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the other Irish Members, because to do so would shut the mouths of the accused parties. In other words, that meant that the hon. and learned Solicitor General could only establish the charges which had been brought against them out of their own mouths. If anyone had shown an aversion to instituting criminal proceedings against those hon. Members it had been the Government themselves. The whole of the London population had been prejudiced on the subject of these libels, and yet the hon. Member for Cork and his Colleagues were pressed to bring a civil action for libel against The Times—that was to say, after The Times and others had set mantraps on the ground, and had poisoned the wells, the Irish Members were asked to come upon the ground and to drink from the wells. If Hungarian patriots had brought civil actions for libel against the traducers before a jury at Vienna, or if the Canadian Home Rulers had come to this country to bring similar actions, everyone would have said that they were insane; and yet the hon. Member for Cork and the other Irish Members were deliberately asked to commit a similar act of insanity. The hon. Member for Cork had more than his own interest and feelings at stake in this matter, and, as the Leader of the Irish Party, he was bound to take care that he was not put at a disadvantage in whatever course he took. If the hon. Member were to bring a civil action for libel against The Times, he would be placing himself at the mercy of any prejudiced individual who might be upon the jury. He wished to know whether a witness who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, had made a full disclosure would be entitled to his certificate of indemnity, or whether he would have to wait for it until the Commission came to an end? What was to be the position of Walter or any other person connected with The Times? What would be the result if Walter were to come before the Commission, and were to say—"I did not believe the letters to be genuine, but I published them knowing them to be forgeries, because I wished to damage Parnell, whom I believe to be a dangerous political character, and I saw no other way to do it?" What was to be done in such a case as that? Was Walter to get off with his certificate of indemnity because the Commissioners were of opinion that he had made a full disclosure? Was Walter, even if convicted of publishing letters which he knew to be forged, and thereby of moral murder, to get off unpunished? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that if one side was to obtain a certificate of indemnity, it ought to be granted equally to the other. For his part, and on the part of his hon. Friends, he could say that they none of them wanted this indemnity. They were prepared to trust their fate to the result of the finding of the Commission. They wanted justice, and no favour. The object of the Bill was to protect Walter from the consequences of his having connived at crime. It was absurd for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that hon. Members from Ireland had put down no Amendments. Why, they had been trying during the past four days to persuade the Government to accept their Amendments without success, and, therefore, it was useless for them to put down more.

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

said, he was afraid that Walter might be put into the witness-box solely for the purpose of obtaining an indemnity for him. In other words, the Commission, instead of being one for eliciting the truth, was intended merely for the purpose of white washing The Times, and saving it from the consequences of an action for libel. He hoped that the country and their constituents would notice that the object of this Commission was to save harmless and to indemnify the editors and proprietors of The Times against their having published the most frightful series of libels which had been put before the public in this country. He thought it would be rather hard if The Times were to be exposed to an action for libel while hon. Members from Ireland themselves claimed exemption from such an action; but it would be remembered that, although hon. Members from Ireland had expressly offered and desired that they should be exposed to the full terrors of the Civil or Criminal Law, on condition that The Times should also be exempt from any indemnity clause, Her Majesty's Government had declined to accept such a proposal.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as to how far this indemnity was to go? Was it to be confined to the libels in the action of "O' Donnell v. Walter?" As he (Sir William Harcourt) understood the words of the clause, it might possibly be applied to every libel published by The Times up to the end of the inquiry by the Commission. That was a rather interesting circumstance to a great number of people, because The Times libelled 20 or 30 persons every day. Personally, he was libelled by The Times nearly every day, and, if he thought fit, probably he should be able to bring an action for libel against The Times very frequently indeed. A great many of those persons who were thus libelled by The Times, however, were wise enough to care very little about the libels and the slanders of The Times; but, at the same time, there might be people who might wish to take notice of the calumnies of The Times; and he wished to know whether it was open to The Times under this indemnity to publish slanders and calumnies every day, and then come before the Commission and state what they pleased with reference to other libels and the subjects of libels? The words of the clause, as they at present stood, were very wide in their scope.

SIR JOHN SIMON (Dewsbury)

said, that those certificates were granted only in cases where transactions could not be brought to light without the offer of an indemnity. The libels complained of would not be matters revealed for the first time before the Commission. They had been published for upwards of 12 months, and their publication could easily be proved, and it was on the publication of those articles they said that there should be no exemption to The Times. If The Times, on the other hand, should be summoned before the Commission and be compelled to state any facts which had not come to light before, the certificate might exempt them for such disclosures as they might then make. No words could sufficiently condemn the atrocious character of those charges which had been published if they were untrue. He agreed that The Times would render a great service to the community if they substantiated the charges which they had published; but if after a strict investigation it was proved that the letters were undoubted forgeries and obtained by foul means, and the Commission came to the conclusion that there was no foundation for the charges against the hon. Members from Ireland, then he said that The Times and all connected with the libels would stand condemned as being guilty of a most infamous crime. It would be impossible to exaggerate the heinousness of such an offence. The phraseology of the Bill was most unjust to the hon. Member for Cork. The case was not analogous to others, in which a similar clause was inserted, for in this case the Inquiry by Commission was not really necessary.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman maintained that the Commission was not necessary because actions might have been brought. That was exactly the position of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews.) It was because the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends had had an opportunity, of which they had not availed themselves, of proving the falsity of the charges elsewhere that the House of Commons was now engaged in erecting a tribunal which was to have inquisitorial powers. It was only fair to say that The Times should be protected as everybody else was protected who came before the Commission and who gave a full and true account of the circumstances of the case. If the proprietor or the editor of The Times came before the Commission and in the face of the world said, "All these statements were not only untrue, but were untrue to our knowledge at the time we made them," he believed there would be such a revulsion of public feeling in that matter, such a rush of public sympathy in favour of the hon. Member for Cork and those who were associated with him, that there were very few political combinations or political ties or political modes of action which would stand against the effect of such a public movement. But surely it was hardly possible to conceive that that admission should be made in the way which the right Gentleman the Member for Derby had suggested. Surely they were dealing with this practical question—By what means were they to get, not only from those who were connected with The Times, but from Members of the House who were assailed in The Times articles and from all others who knew anything about the facts of the case—how were they to get, for the permanent settlement of that question and for the satisfaction of the public mind, the fullest and most complete history of the circumstances which were to be inquired into? The Government believed that that could be done not by making a distinction between the parties and the witnesses before the tribunal, but by giving that tribunal all the powers which similar tribunals had had for exactly the same purpose and for the same reason, and that was that for a full and true disclosure on the part of a witness he should never be assailed civilly or criminally as to the matters on which he was examined. It was conceded that if that protection were withdrawn from the other witnesses it would be disastrous and even altogether fatal to the action of the Commission, and there was, he submitted, no reason why ally distinction should be made in that matter.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) who had just spoken had remarked that if the charges of The Times against the Irish Party were proved to be false there would be a revulsion of public feeling in favour of the accused which would sweep away all political combinations.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, he did not wish to minimize what he had spoken; but what he had really said was that if such a thing happened as the right hon. Member for Derby had suggested—namely, that the representative of The Times came forward and declared not only that those statements were false, but that he had known them to be false when they were made—then there would be such a revulsion of public feeling as he had described.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, of course it would make a difference in the guilt of the proprietor of The Times if he knew the charges to be false; but he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that if the charges were proved to be entirely groundless, then there would be the revulsion of feeling that he had indicated. The Irish Mem- bers had a right to resent strongly the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary's speeches in regard to that Bill. That right hon. Gentleman had suggested as boldly as he could dare that in his opinion the charges of The Times were true.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he entirely disclaimed having done anything of the kind. He had, of course, assumed in argument that the charges of The Times might be false or might be true, but he had not indicated any opinion of his own on the point.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had understood from the language of the right hon. Gentleman that the balance of his mind was in favour of the truth of the charges made by The Times. But, he asked, what business had the right hon. Gentleman to back up his argument for giving an indemnity to The Times by saying that he was willing to give an indemnity to the Irish Members, who had never asked for one.

MR. SEXTON

We do not want it; we would not take it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

They were resolved not to ask for and not to accept a certificate of indemnity if offered by the Commissioners. They defied any tribunal to find a verdict against them. It was true that they had fought the Bill, and they were determined to fight it till the end, because they thought they were brought into that trial under circumstances that were unfair, and that they were handicapped; but they felt that if the Commission was as unfair as the action of the Government was, they would meet it with perfect fearlessness. The Amendment now before the House might be confined simply to retaining the civil liability of The Times. He would ask, was The Times to be absolutely exempt from all civil liability for publishing voluntarily for 15 months such gross libels against Irish Members? When those libels came out The Times said that he was present at the Convention in Chicago in 1883, with O'Donovan Rossa on one side of him and Finerty on the other; that those gentlemen made speeches in which the tragedy in Phœnix Park was referred to in language that was atrocious; that those gentlemen, in his presence, and therefore with his tacit approval, preached the doctrines of dynamite and murder; and it asked how could he, as a Consti- tutional politician and a Member of Parliament, who had taken the oath of allegiance at the Table of that House, allow such language to be used in his hearing without reproof? That was the charge made against him; but he did not answer it, because he supposed that The Times would find out its mistake. The reason why he did not reprove that atrocious language was that he had left America in 1882, and that that meeting of the Convention took place in 1883, at a time when he was 4,000 miles from Chicago. That was a specimen of the sort of foundation on which The Times made its charges against his Colleagues and himself. Two or three weeks afterwards The Times published a correction, in which it announced that it had mistaken him for another person who was not a member of the Irish Party. That was all very well; but would it be believed that the hon. and learned Attorney General, in his speech in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," actually brought forward the old charge against him of having been present at the Dynamite Convention at Chicago in 1883? Was he, then, because The Times was brought into a tribunal constituted and selected by the Government, to be deprived of his right of bringing home to The Times the civil liability to which its own gross carelessness subjected it? A man who was placed in the dock to answer a charge was not bound to prove his innocence, but a newspaper proprietor was bound, if called upon, to prove the truth of his libel. These relative positions were reversed by the Government. Mr. Walter would go into the box because he was asked to show on what grounds his newspaper had made charges against individuals. If it were a civil tribunal the burden of proof would be upon Mr. Walter; and was he to be relieved of that burden simply because he went before a Commission? There was an essential distinction between giving an indemnity to a man who confessed a crime and giving it to a newspaper that was asked to prove a libel which it would be bound to prove in a Court of Law. If the Government persisted in refusing the Amendment, the suspicion would be only too well founded that this was a Bill, not for the discovery of truth, but for the protection of The Times against Irish Members.

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

said, it had been reiterated that this exemption clause was in a form common to Commissions; but that raised a question as to the objects of the Commissions. The former Commissions referred to were appointed not to judge particular individuals, but to inquire into general subjects. He had been under the impression that this was a Commission in the nature of a substitute for some kind of judicial tribunal, and that the inquiry was to be conducted in judicial fashion, and accordingly there were clauses in the Bill giving the right to cross-examine witnesses, to appear by counsel, and enabling the parties to conduct their own cases as before any other tribunal in the land. If that were so, how did they stand with regard to this exemption clause? The exemption was only justifiable in a non-judicial Commission in which the Commissioners arranged their own procedure, decided whether certain witnesses should be called, and took their own method of getting at the truth, the clause under discussion being used as a means of getting at the facts. But before a judicial tribunal it was very different, and were they to understand that it was now contemplated that the Commissioners might refuse, it might be unreasonably, to hear witnesses whom the parties concerned considered it necessary to examine? He thought it could not be right that the parties charged should be prevented from bringing such evidence as might be necessary to clear their characters. The Government were on the horns of a dilemma; either this was a Commission like the Sheffield Commission, in which case the common form clause was admissible, because the issue was not guilty, or not guilty as regarded particular individuals, or else it was a Commission of another kind, a substitute for a judicial tribunal, in which case the inquiry would be conducted not by the judges, but before them, by the parties, and the clause was altogether inapplicable. It was no more applicable in the case before the House than it would be in proceedings before any judicial tribunal in the country.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he did not quite appreciate as an argument in support of the Amendment the suggestion that the proprietor of The Times might come forward and confess that he had published the letters knowing them to be forged. Surely that of all things was to be most desired by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and his Friends. The clause would enable the conductors of The Times to make the desired admission; the Amendment would make it impossible for them to do so. The speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast had made him determine to vote against the clause.

MR. WHITBREAD (Bedford)

said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that the Government had shifted the grounds upon which they defended the clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary based his opposition to the clause on the ground that it would be monstrously unfair to The Times that it should be left exposed and have no protection given to it, while hon. Members from Ireland were covered by protection. Now, on this ground the Government had been openly challenged; the Irish Members said—"Leave us without protection, and the country will understand how the matter stands." So the main argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was gone. The House was getting rather tired of the argument that the Irish Members ought to have gone before a jury—the argument of a man who had used an enormous power, the circulation of the chief journal in England, to poison the minds of the jurymen. The Times took care to poison the well at which it asked the public to drink. When the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been met by the frank declaration of the Irish Representatives that on their side they were willing to forego any special protection, it became necessary for the Government to shift their ground a little bit, and then the hon. and learned Solicitor General put it on a different ground, and said it was out of their bountiful kindness—the Government could not bear to see the Followers of the hon. Member for Cork treated differently from the "other persons" mentioned in the Bill. But would these hon. Members ever have been put upon their trial if they had not been Members of Parliament? Would the Government ever have proposed to establish this tribunal for the trial of the "other persons" whom they were now determined to drag in? He would tell the House why this tribunal was to be established. The hon. Member for Cork and his Friends had succeeded in dragging into light the grievances and miseries of Ireland and exposing them to the criticisms of the world, and it was because the Ministerial Party could not deny the existence of these grievances that they sought to submerge and conceal them by these dreadful accusations. The Members from Ireland were struggling to lift their country out of the deep mire in which English Governments had kept it, and there were those who could not bear that the malpractices of the past should be brought to light. The Government said that, in case the decision of the Commissioners should be against The Times, that journal ought to be protected. The hon. Members from Ireland had repudiated the idea of protection for themselves; he wondered whether The Times would be as willing to repudiate it. He trusted that The Times would be as bold as the Irish Members in this matter, for then, at any rate, there would be a little fair play between the parties to this controversy. The Members from Ireland had challenged the Government. They said—"We do not desire any protection for ourselves, if you will leave our adversaries in the same position." That challenge ought to be taken up.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 191: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 262.)

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) moved the following new Clause:—"That the Commission shall have power to make reports from time to time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that Her Majesty's Government was willing to accept the clause in a somewhat amended shape, making it clear that the Commissioners had a discretion in the matter.

Clause (Commission may report from time to time,)—(Mr. Clancy,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

, in moving the following new Clause:— Within such time prior to the commencement of the inquiry, as the Commissioners shall direct, the defendants in the action of O'Donnell versus Walter and another shall furnish in writing to the Commissioners such particulars of the charges and allegations in this Act referred to as the Commissioners may deem neces- sary to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense, and no evidence shall be given by the said defendants upon any matter not included in such particulars except by the leave of the Commissioners, upon such terms as to amendment of the particulars, postponement of the inquiry, and payment of costs as may be ordered. A copy of such particulars, in so far as they affect any persons, shall within such time prior to the commencement of the inquiry be served upon each such person in such manner as the Commissioners may order; said, that the clause imposed upon The Times the necessity of furnishing such particulars as the Commissioners might think necessary in order to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense, and was practically an adoption of the law relating to Election Petitions. It was perfectly obvious that this Bill was meant to accomplish a two-fold object; one was to get The Times out of a scrape, and the other was to try and get the Irish Members into a scrape. From beginning to end of the hon. and learned Attorney General's (Sir Richard Webster's) speech he had been unable to find any distinct, definite, positive, intelligible charge against anyone. Anything more ridiculous and shadowy than the allegations made it would be impossible to conceive. From begininng to end there was not one single definite charge. The Times said—"We charge the Land League Chiefs." Who were they? Then allusion was made to a scheme of assassination and to murderers. He would ask what scheme of assassination and what murderers? The whole of the statements were absolutely vague, undefined, and unmeaning. It was noticeable that the author of the libels was most ingenious, for when he specified with tolerable certainty the offences, he took good care not to name the persons, but when he mentioned persons he took care not to associate them with any distinct offence.

Clause (Particulars of charges to be furnished to the Commissioners,)—(Mr. Hunter,)—brought up, and read the first time."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not consider him wanting in courtesy if he replied very shortly indeed to his speech upon this clause. The Commission was being founded on the precedents of the Shef- field and Metropolitan Board of Works Commissions, and therefore this new Clause could not be accepted, for it would limit that full discretion which was desired and which it was desirable to give the Members of the Commission.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he thought this clause did not deserve to be treated in this light manner. The often repeated assertion had again been made by the right hon. Gentleman that this Commission was based on the precedents of the Sheffield Commission and the Metropolitan Board of Works Commission; but these were no precedents at all. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, in his speech on the second reading, had, he believed, admitted that there was no precedent for this Commission. The Sheffield Commission was a roving Commission, and no charges were made against individuals. In the present case, the Commission was to inquire into charges and allegations made against certain Members of this House and also against other persons, and in so far as the Members of this House was concerned particulars of the charges and allegations against them ought to be furnished to them. The hon. Member for Cork had stated that he would demand to be allowed to be represented by counsel, and to have his evidence laid before the Commission, and in other respects to have the same rights as a plaintiff in an action for libel, and this demand had been recognized as reasonable by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The Times itself had in a leading article said that they did not doubt that the hon. Member for Cork would be placed— In the same position before the judicial Commission to be constituted by the Bill in which he would have stood before a jury if he had been plaintiff in an action for libel. But if the hon. Member for Cork was plaintiff in an action for libel he would be as of right entitled to particulars of the charges upon which the defendants relied as justification of the libels. He would appeal, therefore, to the sense of fairness of hon. Gentlemen opposite to support this most reasonable clause. These charges extended over a long period of time, and related to the doings of many individuals—they consisted in some part of direct accusations, but still more of innuendoes and insinuations, and was it fair that a file of The Times should be thrown at the head of the hon. Member for Cork, and that he should be told to meet everything that was there alleged? It was said that it was not desirable to interfere with the discretion of the Judges; but this clause, if accepted, would not do so, for it merely provided that only such particulars were to be furnished as the Commissioners might consider necessary in order to prevent surprise and unnecessary expense. Members on that side of the House did not desire in any way to burke this inquiry. By all moans let it be thorough, but, at the same time, in the name of charity and fair-play, let it be conducted on just and honest lines. Do not let them pretend that they were giving to hon. Members a fair opportunity of vindicating their characters before the world unless they gave them a complete investigation.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

said, that the Bill without the proposed now clause would cause considerable trouble and difficulty to the Judges themselves. There must be some definite means by which the Judges could raise particular questions which they desired to inquire into, and it would be manifestly unfair if notice of the intended inquiries were not furnished to the Gentlemen who were implicated in the various charges and allegations.

MR. FINLAY&c.) (Inverness,

in opposing the clause, said, he thought that this attempt to engraft the proceedings applicable to an action at law on an inquiry of this kind was a complete mistake. The proposed inquiry would extend over a great many days, or even weeks, and the Commissioners would certainly take care that no injustice was done by any surprise in the starting of charges against any parties implicated. This was an inquiry of a totally different kind from an action at law, and the sooner the Commissioners got to work the better. The Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the truth of the charges generally, and it would be highly inexpedient to combine the procedure in an inquiry of that kind with the technical procedure of an action at law.

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

said, the only argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had condescended to advance against the proposal was that it had already been decided upon by the House. He traversed that. It was true the Government had resisted every attempt to give to this inquisition the safeguards of a judicial inquiry by inserting in the Bill itself a specification of charges; but that was not the question, nor was it anywhere near the question. What his hon. Friend proposed to do was to require the Commissioners to demand from the persons who came forward in support of these charges—for after all their bold language they would hardly run away—such particulars as in the judgment of the Commissioners would prevent surprise, and thus secure justice. That proposal was so obviously just that he was almost ashamed to argue it. This compilation of Parnellism and Crime he had read, and he had read it as it was hashed up again by the Attorney General for the benefit of the jury, and the impression produced on his mind, from first to last, was that, with the single exception of the letters attributed to the hon. Member for Cork, and which raised a distinct issue of fact, as to which no particulars could be required, there was no definite allegation of crime, or anything approaching crime, against any Member of that House. The method adopted was that of allusion and suggestion. The book was a collection of insinuations and innuendoes. Let him take a sample from page 118 of "O'Donnell v. Walter," which dealt with the concealment of the knives. The writer said— It was Frank Byrne, the secretary to the English branch of the League, who procured the weapons with which the crime was perpetrated, and his wife was afterwards feted in New York as 'the brave little woman' who carried those weapons to Dublin. The offices of the League consisted of a small back room on the entresol floor of Palace Chambers, Bridge-street, Westminster. An adjoining room, equally small, with folding doors between, constituted 'the offices of the Irish Parliamentary Party.' The folding doors stood open, and the Irish M.P.'s escaped asphyxia by using the two rooms as one. … The treasurer to the League, Mr. Thomas Quinn, now M.P. for Kilkenny, was a frequent visitor, and while in London the Irish M.P.'s were in an out at all hours. The M.P.'s, of course, held their caucus meetings there, as did also the executive committee of the League. In this office the weapons were kept for several days before Byrne removed them to his home in Peckham. The knives laid in a paper parcel on the floor; the Winchester rifle and the revolvers of which so much was heard at the murder trials lay open to the inspection of the curious. Again, on page 124, it says— We have stated that the knives and fire-arms procured for the assassins in Dublin lay in their office, frequented as it was by the Parnellite leaders, for several days before they were conveyed to Dublin by Mrs. Byrne, or another woman passing under her name. Now, he asked, what was the allegation in this? It might be said—and he had no doubt that the anonymous coward who penned it would say—that it meant simply this—that the Members ought to have been more careful before employing a man capable of such desperate outrages. But, on the other hand, it might mean a great deal more; it might mean that the Members, who were constantly frequenting the office, either knew, or ought to have known, that this parcel of knives was there, and that they knew, or ought to have known, the purposes for which the knives were to be used. If that was what the writer meant, "the Irish M.P.'s"—no one was named—were charged with being privy or accessories before the fact to one of the most cruel crimes which ever stained these countries. He should say nothing about the writer, except that he had been guilty of the most scandalous violation of the honourable traditions of English journalism, and of the elementary rules of fair play. But the most rudimentary considerations of justice demanded that these men should know beforehand what was the charge they were going to meet. On the grounds which he had stated, he submitted that the clause was quite consistent with all the previous decisions to which the House had come; and it was not only open to the Government to adopt the clause, but unless it were adopted there would be serious risk that the inquiry would be converted into an instrument of the grossest unfairness and injustice.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary gave an artistic illustration of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman said that crime was at an one end and crimelessness at the other, and the degrees between were imperceptibly shaded. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed that he felt shame, as an Englishman, at the nature of the plot, now so fully developed, directed against representative Irishmen, for no other reason, as he believed, than because they represented the Irish people. He admitted that it was desirable the Commission should get to work as soon as possible; but this clause would not work against a speedy inquiry, because The Times was well aware of what charges it was able to prove, and, therefore, it would be no hardship for The Times to give the particulars asked for. With reference to the gravest part of the charge alleged by The Times—namely, in regard to the presence of weapons in a certain room, connecting the Irish Members as a body by the language of innuendo with knowledge of these weapons, he would like to ask whether, leaving out altogether the proceedings in an action at law, it was fair to leave any man or any number of men in a party of over 80 persons in doubt as to whether or not any attempt would be made to give that general innuendo a special direction against him or them? Personally he had no objection to go before any inquiry if each individual was required only to explain his own conduct; but that was not so. Every person named was sought to be connected with other persons. He submitted that everyone charged or pointed at was entitled to ask The Times for particulars which would enable him to see how they connected him with crime. Owing to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), more murders were committed in Belfast during three months of 1886 than in all Ireland during the whole time the Land League was in existence. Now, suppose The Freeman's Journal openly made a charge against the Unionist Party of having complicity in these murders and an inquiry was ordered, how would any Member of the Unionist Party feel if he were told he would get no particulars as to the extent to which he was criminal or blamable? His own name was mentioned in connection with three different occasions in Parnellism and Crime, and was it not simply fair play to tell him before the inquiry opened whether or not he must summon evidence from different places to explain the perfectly innocent character of the circumstances? If anybody could show him that this would be a hardship on The Times, he should be glad to hear it. The Times had from time to time dropped a part of its libels. The full body of them was not what it was 12 months ago; some parts had been dropped because found to be palpably untrue, and surely the Irish Members were entitled to know how much it intended to prove and how much it had dropped. For, no matter how fallacious an allegation might be, they had no security that The Times would not proceed with it, and they should have no evidence unless they were told beforehand. The demand now made would not curb the inquiry, but it would help to elicit the truth by placing the persons charged in a position by preparation to adduce the fullest and most conclusive evidence on all matters which were judged to be relevant to the inquiry. The Irish Members asked for nothing more than the application of a primary rule of justice in this case, and i f the Government refused the clause, they would not only defeat an obvious claim of justice, but they would hinder the due and full disclosure of the truth, and impose difficulties on the parties charged by compelling them to keep their counsel and witnesses continually at the investigation, at a very grievous loss of time and intolerable expense.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

said, he wished to enter his protest and most hearty condemnation of the course which the Government were pursuing in this matter as he thought it was essentially unjust. It was said that the clause would limit and hamper the power of the Commission. He must traverse that proposition absolutely. He must also deny that this Bill was similar to that which was passed to deal with Trades Unions. In this Bill there were distinct charges against certain specified persons; in the other there had been no charges made against any one single person. In speaking upon the second reading of the Sheffield Commission Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had objected to the two subjects of outrage at Sheffield and the effects of Trades Unions on the interests of the country being treated together, on the ground that the fact of certain deplorable acts having been committed might bias the minds of the Commissioners and thereby prejudice the examination of the broader question. Those remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were most apposite to the present occasion, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would therefore join him in voting for this clause.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that he had been appealed to to say whether he thought that it was just that hon. Members opposite who were affected by the statements in the articles published in The Times should be called upon to face this inquiry without the preliminary specification of charges which was not only suggested but required by this clause. He would not stand there to advocate any course which he did not consider to be perfectly consistent with entire justice to hon. Members opposite, and he did not consider that justice did require that this clause should be accepted. The question now was whether they should dictate to the Commissioners that they should require, before starting on the inquiry, the formulating of certain charges made by the The Times. As had been said before on that side of the House, to do so would be giving an entirely new character to the inquiry; it would make the Commissioners recognize the proprietors of The Times as persons coming before them to advocate—and bound to advocate—a particular set of charges. That was not the character of this inquiry at all. These charges had been made, and the truth of them would have to be inquired into; but he knew of no justification of any kind for that House laying it down that the Commissioners should require that the proprietors of The Times should formulate a series of accusations by which they would be bound in this matter. That was outside the intention and the character—the necessary character—of this inquiry. It was true there were limitations as to the time at which the particulars were to be delivered; but the words were directory as to requiring particulars. The defendants in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter" were not parties to this inquiry in the sense of being parties to an action at law; the Commissioners had to examine into the truth of the allegations made. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had again referred to the three allusions made to him in the articles in The Times read at the recent trial. In his (Sir Edward Clarke's) opinion, that reference was a good instance of the absolutely unnecessary character of any particulars at all. Supposing that the question was with regard to the hon. Member being in Paris at a particular time; if the charges rested upon that fact evidence would have to be given against him that he was in Paris at that time before there was any real accusation to answer, and his own evidence with regard to that would be over-whelming in the absence of evidence to contradict it before the Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) asked him to define the charges; and the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) asked him to say what the course of the Judges would be. He respectfully declined to do either. He was neither counsel in the matter nor one of the Judges. The hon. and learned Member for East Fife read a passage with the view of showing that it was general imputation which was made upon the Irish Members; but, curiously enough, he loft out three and a-half lines in the middle, the very part which contained a reference by name to one Member of the Irish Party in the House.

MR. ASQUITH

said, he omitted these words— The regular occupants of the office were Frank Byrne himself, D. M'Sweeney, clerk to the League, now dead, and Mr. H. Campbell, Mr. Parnell's private secretary, now M.P. for Fermanagh —because they were immaterial.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that the lines left out contained reference to three persons who were regular occupants of the office in which it was stated that "while in London the Irish M.P.'s were in and out at all hours." It was treating the House very strangely to leave out three and a-half lines, which contained, not only the name of Byrne, but also the name of Mr. Parnell's private secretary. With these documents before the three learned Judges, they could see very definite charges indeed. When it was proposed to refer the matter, not to a Commission, but to a Select Committee, the House did not hear much about defining the charges. The hon. Member for West Belfast asked whether the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be called upon to produce evidence that he was not present at a particular meeting at Chicago, as alleged in Parnellism, and Crime. The Times, however, admitted that that was one of the allegations in Parnellism and Crime which was not accurate. Of course, therefore, the hon. Member would not have to call any evidence about that. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) had pointed out that the demand for particulars of the charges beforehand rested on the supposition that the charges were to be tried before a jury or a tribunal sitting for the express purpose, and which would shortly be dissolved. But before the Commission, if an allegation was made by a witness against the character of any one, there would be abundant notice in the evidence itself, and the Commission could, and no doubt would, if necessary, adjourn so as to insure the fullest disclosure of the truth. There were a good many clauses still on the Paper with which the Government were anxious to deal in a reasonable manner, and he hoped they would now be allowed to dispose of the present Clause.

MR. R. T. REID

said, that all the clause asked was that the defendants in "O'Donnell v. Walter and another" should be required to furnish such particulars as the Commissioners might deem it necessary to prevent surprise or unnecessary expense. If the Commissioners did not deem them necessary, they need not require such particulars. There was no proceeding known to an English Court in which the particulars now asked for would be refused, and no civilized jurisprudence would deny them to persons charged with even slight offences, and still less would deprive the Commissioners of a discretionary power on the subject. The hon. and learned Solicitor General gave two remarkable reasons for not accepting the clause. The first was, that he did not wish to dictate to the Commissioners; but the clause did not dictate to the Commissioners. It left the matter to their discretion. The second reason was still more remarkable. It was said that he did not wish The Times to appear in the position of accuser. That was to say, that persons who had circulated day after day by hundreds of thousands these libels, and who had made these allegations in the speech of their counsel in the case of "O'Donnell v. The Times," were not to be bound to make any accusations whatever. It would not be denied by the Solicitor General that if he were sitting in a judicial position he would not refuse the particulars which he now refused. The debates on the Bill had been, from beginning to end, exceedingly instructive, and the real motive for the opposition to the clause was, that the Government did not want to place The Times in the disgraceful position of being obliged to specify charges which it would afterwards have to admit were unfounded. They wished, having thrown out this tremendous mass of suggestion and allegation against the Irish Members, to allow The Times to say it never made such charges, and hon. Members opposite, who, speaking in the country, had been suggesting their truth, to escape from the responsibility of making them. There had been no instance of such meanness in the whole course of these debates as to refuse to give the Commissioners power to direct that specifications of allegations, when necessary, should be given.

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

said, he wished to point out that there were many persons connected with this inquiry who had not been mentioned in the original indictment. It had been charged that the organization of the Land League had fomented crime in Ireland; and as he himself had been actively engaged in organizing that association, and had established many branches of it in 1880–81–82, and 1883, it was not improbable that he might be called as a witness before the Commission. It would then lie upon him to prove that his connection with that organization had been of an innocent character. Further than that, during many years he had been in communication with Mr. Parnell and with other Leaders of the Irish Party in connection with the National League, and he had received and had disbursed large sums of money for the purposes of that League. It had been stated again and again that the money of the organization had been used in promoting assassination. Was he not, therefore, concerned to prove that every farthing of the money he had received had been devoted to legitimate purposes? In these circumstances, it was only just that he should have an opportunity of refreshing his memory with regard to the facts he would be examined about before the Commission, and that, therefore, he ought to be furnished with a copy of the particulars of the matters with regard to which he would be required to give evidence. To deny him those particulars would be an act of injustice, and would show that the object of the Commission was not to elicit the truth. From the course which this debate had taken, he knew that it was impossible for the Irish Members to expect justice at the hands of the Party opposite. The Bill had been read a first and a second time, and had passed through Committee without the Government having accepted a single substantial Amendment which had been proposed by the Irish Members. Seeing that witnesses would have to be brought from Ireland and from all parts of the world to give evidence before the Commission, he urged that, merely upon the ground of economy, if upon no other, particulars of the matters to be gone into should be given. He therefore urged that it was the duty of the Government and of the majority of that House to accept this Amendment. The Government in opposing the proposal were actuated by the same spirit of unfairness which had characterized their conduct throughout the whole course of the Bill.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said, he wished to point out that without a bill of particulars, the sitting of the Commission would be excessively prolonged, and that the legal expenses would become enormous. Perhaps he could not convince the hon. and learned Solicitor General for England opposite that that was a thing to be avoided, for the hon. and learned Gentleman might himself be engaged for The Times, though he fancied the hon. and learned Gentleman would hardly think it a nice thing to be speaking in one place for the The Times and then coming down to the House as an impartial Law Officer and Adviser to the Crown. He (Colonel Nolan) had had some experience of the want of particulars. Some years ago he was concerned in an Election Petition, and the Judge refused to make an order for the particulars, with the result that instead of lasting only 8 or 10 days the inquiry occupied 55 days, and the costs, as a consequence, were £11,000 instead of only £3,000 or £4,000. It would be the same in this inquiry. How did the Government know that fresh charges would not be sprung upon them? Lately, the Irish Members had been accused of the crime of silence, particularly with reference to the Phœnix Park murders. He for one should like to hear the particulars of that charge, supposing it were to be seriously made. All he could say was, that a day or two after the Phœnix Park murders a public meeting was held in the principal town of his constituency, and resolutions were passed condemning the murders, special reference being made to the death of Mr. Burke. He contended that it was not fair to the 86 Irish Members that that cloud should be allowed to hang over them, and in justice to them particulars of the charges ought to be furnished. He protested against the conduct of the Government in refusing those particulars, and thought that refusal would cause the inquiry to be drawn out to an inordinate length, and he could not also help thinking that the Tory Party and The Times were doing this in order to make it a battle of costs.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he must appeal to the House to say whether that particular Amendment had not been sufficiently discussed. If the discussion were prolonged, the result would be that time would not be left for the consideration of the other important Amendments on the Paper. In the interest of those Amendments, he hoped the House would be allowed to close the discussion either by a Division or by the withdrawal of the clause.

MR. HALDANE

supported the Amendment. He would not stand long between the House and a Division; but he felt bound to say the debate had filled him with alarm, because to him it seemed a new thing that a Commission should be appointed for the purpose of doing that which it was the sacred right of every subject to have done only by the constitutional tribunal of the land. Surely, there should be before this Commission the ordinary privileges extended to those whose characters and reputations were at stake. All they asked was, what was generally and as of right conceded to the meanest criminal, that no man should be tried on charges of which he knew nothing, and which might be brought, as it were, behind his back. The Government were now for the first time setting the Judges upon what was nothing less than a roving inquiry; and the Judges would not thank the Government for the burden they were throwing upon them under conditions which would render them liable to the suspicion of partizanship. It appeared to him that in taking that course, the Government were doing a most unfair thing, and a thing that would be remembered against them so long as the history of the Irish Question survived in the memory of the people of this country.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

said, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that that was not a contest between The Times and hon. Members from Ireland, but that the Commission was to inquire into the whole subject and find out the truth. With all deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr W. A. M'Arthur) said that the country would not agree with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman might be correct as to the legal definition of the points to come before the Commission; but the country generally, which cared little about legal subtleties, looked upon The Times as the prosecutor and hon. Members from Ireland as the defendants in that case; and it was perfectly monstrous that when that journal had for a whole year cast accusation after accusation against Irish Members, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite had used those accusations for an equal period to create prejudice, the Government should, while establishing a tribunal to inquire into the truth or untruth of those charges, refuse either themselves to specify the particular charges which had to be met or to accept an Amendment providing that they should be specified by The Times. He believed that people in the country were disgusted with the action of the Government in the matter of the Amendment, and would look upon it as a proof of their willingness to give every assistance to The Times in the prosecution against Irish Members and to throw every difficulty in the way of those Members making their defence. That action would be viewed by many plain, honest men as giving an undue advantage to The Times and as being opposed to the interests of fair play and ordinary justice. Though sympathizing with the desire of Irish Members for a separate Parliament, he had not often been able to sympathize with the methods adopted in Ireland for the furtherance of that desire. He had even been shocked one morning to find himself commended in The Standard for the course he had taken in this matter. The present was one of the most scandalous cases of injustice that had been brought to the knowledge of the House during the whole course of the debates on the Bill.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 184: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 263.)

MR. MAURICE HEALY

had a clause on the Paper, to provide that any person printing or publishing by speech or writing any comment on the evidence given before the Commission until it should have reported, should be guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to be sentenced by the Commission to any punishment now attaching by law to misdemeanour, or to pay a fine not exceeding £1,000; and another clause to make the misreporting of the evidence a misdemeanour to be visited with similar penalties; but——

MR. SPEAKER

intimated that as the clauses involved an alteration of the Criminal Law, they were not within the scope of the Bill.

MR. MAURICE HEALY moved a new Clause, providing that— No witness domiciled in Ireland shall, except with his consent, be summoned to attend for examination in England, nor shall any English or Scotch witness be compelled to undergo examination in Ireland, and the Commissioners shall conduct their examinations in such places as shall appear to them most convenient and least expensive for witnesses.

Clause (Place of sittings,)—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not accept the Amendment, and he was sure the hon. Member could hardly have considered the effect of the clause. It had not been contemplated for a moment that the Commission should ever sit in Ireland. If they were to sit in Ireland the Judges would not have the same power as they had in this country, and it was impossible for the Government to accept the clause, which could not be given effect to without remodelling all the clauses of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

, in moving the following new Clause— No Member of Parliament against whom any of the said charges or allegations have been made shall be detained in custody under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act during the sittings of the Commission, said, he maintained that it was only fair that persons who were supposed to be implicated by the charges of The Times and who were in gaol should be given an opportunity of appearing before the Commissioners and defending themselves. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) who was now in prison, was more deeply interested in the proceedings than anybody else, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). It would be monstrously unjust that The Times should have the power to libel the hon. Member before the Commission behind his back.

Clause (Members imprisoned,)—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he would suggest that the question could be raised more advantageously on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), which stood lower down on the Paper. The substance of that Amendment was, that if it should appear to the Commissioners that any person affected by the charges and allegations was at any time during the inquiry imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, the Commissioners might, subject to such conditions as regards bail or otherwise as they might prescribe, order the release of such persons during continuance of the inquiry. That Amendment, he contended, was perfectly fair and it was absolutely necessary, in order to insure that any Member in the present position of the hon. Member for East Mayo should have an opportunity of meeting the charges brought against him. It should be observed that the Amendment would leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.

MR. SEXTON

said, he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy) to amend his clause according to the terms of the clause of the hon. Member for North Wexford.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the clause must first be read a second time.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

also pointed out that the hon. Member (Mr. J. E. Redmond) was not present, and that his Motion could not be raised in his absence.

MR. SEXTON

proposed to insert "and other persons."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, that it was impossible, under any circumstances, for the Government to agree to the clause. If amended in the manner suggested, it would apply to all persons affected by the allegations, and the effect would be that during the whole of the inquiry, which every Member from Ireland said would last for years, every Member of Parliament who was named in the charges would be free to violate any provision of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act with impunity; and the hon. Member for West Belfast proposed to extend this licence to mankind at large. He did not think any injustice would be done if the clause were not agreed to. It was clear that if charges were made before the Commissioners against a person who was in custody, and who, therefore, was unable to prepare his defence, the Court would listen to an application on his behalf with a view to the appointment of a future day when he might appear and defend himself. The Commissioners would, of course, take care that persons affected or incriminated should have an opportunity of answering the charges before any report hostile to them was drawn up. The Commissioners would show themselves to be unfit to discharge the duties entrusted to them if they were to do otherwise. The Government could not consent to suspend the Crimes Act during the inquiries of the Commission; nor could they transfer to the Commissioners the Prerogative of Mercy vested in the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's fantastic speech was quite unworthy of that grave debate. So far from applying to mankind at large, the Amendment would only affect the portion of the Irish race within the reach of the Coercion Act. And it only applied to a few of these; for it referred only to those named in the charges who were at present in gaol under the Coercion Act. Twenty-five Members of his Party were mentioned by name in the libellous articles of The Times, and the whole Party was designated by implication. There were at present three Members of the Party in gaol; a fourth was on his way to prison, and many more would very likely follow him. Prisoners under the Crimes Act were not allowed to see the newspapers, and had no means of learning what was being done in the world except from the chance whisper of a friendly warder. What security was there that witnesses would not bring charges against Members who were in prison; and, if such charges were made, ought not the persons implicated to be present to instruct counsel how to cross-examine? His hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo and other imprisoned Members could not defend themselves before the Commission if they were not present during the whole of the inquiry to hear the evidence, for at any moment evidence might be given to their disadvantage. His argument applied with equal force to the other persons implicated. Would the Government make any concession? The Amendment would apply to but a very few persons; and he, therefore, trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of making some concession so as to obviate the possibility of Members being kept in prison while evidence affecting them was being given.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he hoped that some reasonable arrangement would be arrived at, as he was sure that the Government must desire that all persons incriminated should have a fair trial. It could not be fair that any persons should be confined in prison while witnesses affecting them were called, and when they were unable to instruct their counsel. Was it not possible to find some means of enabling them to be present? A simple provision, he thought, could be inserted, permitting the Commissioners, or the Chief Secretary, or any other authority, to order their release on such conditions as were thought proper. A still further limitation could be put in, providing that the power should only apply to persons imprisoned under the Crimes Act. He would ask the Government, whether they did not consider they could do with advantage that which the public would feel was consistent with fair play? Some such provision as the one proposed was required.

MR. FORREST FULTON (West Ham, N.)

said, he hoped that the Government would, under no circumstances, accept the Amendment. It was perfectly manifest that it could have but one of two objects. One object—no doubt a laudable one in the view of hon. Members opposite—was to secure the release of the hon. Member for East Mayo. What he desired to point out was, that this concession must have the result of releasing the hon. Member for East Mayo. From the very day that the Commission began its sittings, the hon. Member would escape his punishment. That was the first object of hon. Members opposite. But there was another one, which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would set their faces against. If the new clause were agreed to, the result would be that hon. Members opposite, whose names bad been directly or indirectly mentioned, would be at liberty to go about from one end of Ireland to the other delivering the most inflammatory speeches, and the terms of the clause would render sentences of six months' imprisonment with hard labour which might be passed upon them an absolute nullity. They could not be detained in custody until the Commission had reported, and the operation of the Crimes Act would thus be entirely paralyzed. That, in his opinion, together with the desire to get the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) set free, was the motive for the clause. He, therefore, trusted that Her Majesty's Government would appreciate the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite in introducing the Amendment. In their most honeyed tones, they had appealed to the Government to make this concession; but he sincerely hoped that the Government would not be led astray, but would firmly resist this insidious proposal.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he sincerely hoped that the Government would not listen to the advice which they had just received from the Old Bailey. The arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman were worthy of the Central Criminal Court; but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would look at the matter from a higher and broader standpoint. In whatever aspect they looked at it, he could tell them that it would not be regarded from the Old Bailey point of view in the country. The proposal was, that men who were imprisoned under the exceptional law should not be subject to attacks from which they had no means of defending themselves. The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was that the hon. Member for East Mayo should be kept in prison. Hon. Members feared doubtless lest Mr. Dillon should be liberated; they wished him to be kept in prison, ignorant of what was going on, without means of defending his character from the attacks made upon it. He was to be charged with leaguing with assassins. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing): Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheered that——

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

You charged him with it.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had not done so in general terms, he——

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

rose to Order. Was the right hon. Gentleman speaking to the Question?

MR. SPEAKER

called upon

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, who stated that it was perfectly true that the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) made a speech in the house which he (Sir William Harcourt) was sure no one regretted more than himself. When the hon. Member made it he (Sir William Harcourt) denounced it. But his denunciation referred only to that speech, and not to the general character of the hon. Member. Even the Members for Ulster observed some decency on that occasion. Now, it was proposed to let the hon. Member lie in prison, while his enemies, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and others, made statements against him of which the hon. Member would have no knowledge, with respect to which he would be unable to bring witnesses and prepare his case beforehand. The Government were gagging this man, putting manacles upon him and depriving him of all means of defence, of all communication with his friends, of seeking evidence which he might require possibly from abroad. Did hon. Members opposite imagine that the country would think him fairly dealt by? No; the people of the country would know that an outrage was being committed against this man and every man similarly circumstanced. The Government were handing these men to the tender mercies of The Times newspaper and of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who might slander them as they pleased and bring any charge they liked against them. Prison discipline was rigidly enforced, and no man was to come near him, while he was defamed before the Commission! Was that English justice, was that the "unexampled generosity" of the Solicitor General? They might do as they pleased, the country would understand the meaning of their action. Day by day the necessity of their position compelled and would compel the Government to imprison more and more men—the very men against whom they wanted to bring these charges—and the more necessary it would become to lock up these men, and they were to be allowed no means of defence.

COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire S. W., Bootle)

Hear, hear!

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

That sentiment is cheered from the Tory Benches. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that the sentiment he has enunciated met with no sympathy whatever on these Benches.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Wigan had no sympathy with those feelings; but there were Gentlemen sitting extremely near him who cheered.

COLONEL SANDYS

said, that he had cheered to express his view that the Rules of Her Majesty's prisons should be maintained.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that that meant that the hon. and gallant Member desired that no opportunity to defend themselves should be given to these men. That was the sentiment the hon. and gallant Gentleman cheered. An exceptional tribunal had been constituted, for the working of which the Government were responsible, and they all knew with what bitterness and animosity charges would be made against these men. They all knew with what ability The Times would be represented at the inquiry by the leading lawyers of the combined Unionist Party, led by the hon. and learned Attorney General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). Everything that the most practised arts of advocacy could bring to bear against accused men would be brought against the Irish Members by The Times newspaper. And all the while these men would be lying in prison not knowing what was charged against them. That was the English justice and the unexampled generosity which was to be shown to Irish Members. If the Commission was to last a year, on the average the Government would lock up perhaps five or six Members every month, and there would be 50 or 60 men in prison at the end of a twelvemonth. Was it worth while for the Government to disregard the objects, the claims, and the principles of justice simply in order that for a few weeks longer they might keep the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) in prison? He had heard the speech of the Home Secretary with surprise and regret, and could not hold that it applied at all to the essence of the question, which was, whether upon an indictment of this charater, it was just or not that the men charged should have the means of procuring the materials for their defence before the Commission.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that for several hours the House had been discussing the Amendments in a quiet and fair spirit on both sides with the object of securing that the Bill should pass into law in a form which should, as far as possible, secure the due administration of justice. After they had been discussing the measure in that tone the whole evening, the right hon. Gentleman, after three and a-half hours of absence from the House, came back and flared into the debate with his usual temper, not attempting to address himself to the question which was immediately before the House in its practical aspects and considerations, but endeavouring, by a repetition of all sorts of taunts which hon. Gentlemen had heard over and over again during the course of these debates, to drive the discussion into an angry controversy. The right hon. Gentleman turned upon his Friend the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), and attacked him in language which he (Sir Edward Clarke) and others of his Profession had often heard before from the right hon. Gentleman for having practised at the Old Bailey. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what the Old Bailey was? Did he know that at the Old Bailey, in the Central Criminal Court, some of the greatest trials had been conducted? Did he know that the Central Criminal Court was associated with all those great State trials at the end of the last century and the beginning of this that had done so much to vindicate the liberties of Englishmen? Did he know that it was there that some of the finest speeches recorded in the annals of the Profession to which he once belonged, and which he practised, he (Sir Edward Clarke) was bound to say, without much success, were made? It would have been a good thing for the right hon. Gentleman and the House, if he (Sir William Harcourt) had had some practice at the Old Bailey; for there he would have been taught that fairness, straightforwardness, and candour of controversy which were so lamentably absent from his speeches. It was a very practical question with I which they had now to deal, and that evening they had been dealing with the Amendments in a practical way while the right hon. Gentleman had been amusing himself elsewhere. He was quite prepared to deal with the Amendment now before the House as a practical one. As it stood upon the Paper, however, it was absurd. Its terms would give leave and licence to all Members of Parliament against whom any charges or allegations might be inferred from those matters which had been published by The Times; it would give them leave and licence to violate as much as they pleased the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and it would give them an absolute indemnity from imprisonment for those offences during the whole time the Commission lasted. But it was proposed to amend that in some way, and to give the Commissioners power to order the release of those persons who were imprisoned under the Act. He did not, however, recognize any difference between persons imprisoned under that particular Statute and persons who were imprisoned under other Acts of Parliament. They had been asked by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman had been discussing very fairly and frankly the Amendments before the House, what security they had that injustice would not be done? They had a security in the character of the tribunal. They were going to appoint three Judges of unchallenged honour to sit upon this tribunal. They were entrusting to them the duty of examining and reporting upon the allegations which were made in these articles. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that those Judges, whose names he knew and whose repute he knew, would allow themselves to report against a man with regard to charges made in these articles without taking care that he had time and opportunity to answer the charges? It was impossible to imagine that anything of the kind would occur. If it were simply a question of giving evidence, the Judges would have ample power to secure the presence before them of persons who had to give evidence. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were imprisoning five or six Members of Parliament a month, and asked how long this was to be allowed to go on. He (Sir Edward Clarke) would not stop to discuss the accuracy of that statement, because accuracy of statement was with the right hon. Gentleman a mere trivial detail which it would be frivolous to discuss. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose that as long as the Commission sat no Member of Parliament should be imprisoned under the Crimes Act? If the right hon. Gentleman did not propose that, there was no point whatever in his reference to the number of Members of Parliament who were in prison under the Act. The advocacy of the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman had shown its absurdity to the House, and hon. Members were indebted to him for having been good enough to show how ridiculous the whole thing was. He believed that hon. Members opposite might rest in the full and absolute confidence that justice in the matter would be fairly administered by the three distinguished Judges who had been appointed on the Commission, and whose honour, he repeated, had never been challenged. Such men would certainly not allow themselves in their report to say anything which would bring a stain or an imputation of crime upon any man who was mentioned in the course of these proceedings without giving him an opportunity of knowing, considering, challenging, and controverting the charges made against him.

MR. BRADLAUGH

said, that according to his experience of criminal trials, when a defendant to an indictment had been in custody in this country, it had been easy to obtain from the prison authorities orders by means of which the freest communication could be held with him with reference to his defence. That was practically impossible under the system of discipline which was pursued under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in Ireland. A defendant in a criminal trial had, to his knowledge, been permitted by the Lord Chief Justice to sit in Court for four days, while another trial was going on, in order to assist him in his defence. In the present Bill the Government were proposing to put upon Members of Parliament a harsher kind of treatment than they put upon ordinary criminals in England. Was that likely to produce a good feeling outside? There was, no doubt, something in the objection that Members of Parliament might be released under the proposed clause from a sentence which they had incurred under a law which Parliament had sanctioned, and therefore he would propose to the hon. Member who moved the clause that he should accept an Amendment to the effect that no charge or allegation should be made against any Member of Parliament before the Commission so long as such Member should be detained under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, or otherwise. Surely, it would not tend to the discovery of the truth to keep a man in close confinement while a case was being built up against him by the evidence of witnesses he might never be able to get at again. He trusted that the Government, if they could not accept the clause in its present shape, would at least introduce such words as would accord a man charged before the Commission the ordinary right of a defendant to an indictment—of attending the Court where the trial took place, and be represented by counsel or solicitor.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he thought that the clause in the form in which it now stood on the Paper could not be adopted; because, for one reason, it seemed to propose to establish a sort of privilege for Members of Parliament. But there was another clause on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), which sought to provide, that where it should appear that any persons against whom charges and allegations were made before the Commissioners were imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, the Commissioners should have power, subject to such conditions as regards bail or otherwise as they might prescribe, to order the release of such persons during the pendency of the inquiry. It would, he thought, be difficult to adopt even that clause as it stood; but if it were modified, so as to give power to the Commissioners to order the release of persons to attend the inquiry, he thought many grave objections would be removed. He would point out that Clause 3 of the Bill provided that all persons implicated might attend the inquiry, and went on to declare that they might attend by solicitor or counsel. He would suggest that when Clause 3 was reached, an Amendment might be introduced, adding to it as a sub-section the words which now stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Wexford, with such alterations as he (Mr. Courtney) had suggested.

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

said, the Government would be very glad to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, and insert a Proviso which should secure the attendance of such persons at and during the inquiries. He hoped, upon that understanding, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought his hon. Friend might, after that statement, withdraw his Amendment.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

(who spoke amid great interruption) said, he had to thank the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means for having come to the rescue of the Government, and extricated the House from the deep slough in which it had been engulfed.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

, in moving the following Clause:— Provided that no person shall be called upon or summoned to answer such charges and allegations until evidence in respect thereof has been tendered to the Commissioners, said, he thought it was a perfectly fair provision which ought to be accepted.

Clause (No person be summoned until evidence has been tendered,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the Government were unable to accept the Amendment, as it would fetter the discretion of the Judges as to the order in which the witnesses should be called. This was a matter which should be left entirely to their own judgment. To take an extreme case. It might be possible that The Times would not appear to offer any evidence before the Commission. Should that improbability happen, would it not be an extraordinary result that the Commissioners should be forbidden, when they came to the close of their inquiry and not having elicited evidence with regard to any particular person, to say—"We shall call the gentleman who has been spoken of." He thought the witness should be entitled to come, whether the evidence was tendered or not, and he considered it would be embarking on a very unwise and improper course to point out to this Commission, consisting of men of great judgment, what line they ought to take.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, they had now another statement. They were told that The Times might not give any evidence at all. He wanted to know for what purpose the Bill was brought in? It was to investigate into charges made by The Times, but, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, The Times might not appear in the case at all. The right hon. Gentleman had solemnly told the Committee that the inquiry of the Commission into charges and allegations made by The Times was to be conducted without requiring or getting the evidence of The Times in support of these charges and allegations. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] That was what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he wished to explain it he could do so. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was quite unable to explain this extraordinary change of front. They had had many of these incidents in the course of the discussion, and now at 12 o'clock, on the fourth stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman told them that the whole foundation and substance of the Bill was, that The Times might give no evidence at all before the Commission, which was supposed to investigate the charges and allegtions. He was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman in making so extraordinary a statement had not taken the trouble to understand the meaning of the clause of his hon. Friend. It provided that no person should be called upon or summoned to answer any charges and allegations until evidence in respect thereof had been tendered to the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that if a Member wished to come forward and clear bis character from the allegations and charges made by The Times he could do so, and he had been good enough to express the hope that they would clear themselves. In the first place, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as the Members in question were concerned, they were absolutely indifferent to the charges, and they did not think they required a Commission or anything else to clear their characters. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid of any anxiety on their part to maintain that innocence of which they were conscious. His hon. Friend had rightly proposed that nobody should be compelled to come forward to give evidence until he had something to answer; that no person should be called upon or summoned to appear until evidence had been tendered to the Commissioners. That he thought a very plain and proper provision. Why should he come forward to defend himself until he was attacked? The advantage to The Times, according to the right hon. Gentleman, would be this: The Times gave no evidence against him, yet the Commissioners would have the power of examining him, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be compelled to lay bare all his defence before he was attacked. It was The Times who would call upon him to appear, and the Commission would summon him to do so; he would be compelled to give his evidence to the counsel in cross-examination and show his whole case, while, as he had pointed out, The Times might not have a shadow of evidence against him. He had never heard anything more contrary to the rule of fair play or common sense ever proposed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought they were entitled to have some answer from the Law Officers of the Crown, and he was quite willing to have it from the highest authority—the Central Criminal Court. He would like to know what was the meaning of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? A good deal had been said about the debates on this Bill being protracted; but he was bound to say that not an hour passed without their getting entirely new light thrown upon the matter. He believed the people would read with great interest the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that The Times would not appear in this Commission at all, and would offer no evidence in support of their allegations.

MR. MATTHEWS

remarked, that what he had said was, that it was probable that there would be many of the allegations made throughout the proceedings in support of which no evidence would be offered.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that they anticipated that might be so, and that in many cases no evidence would be offered. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to go a little further into detail, he would specify the forged letters. Here was a Commission to inquire into charges and allegations made by The Times newspaper, and in the speech of the counsel for The Times in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," and the right hon. Gentleman says he does not know in how many cases, but he thought it very probable that no evidence would he given in some cases. What was to be the course of these proceedings? Here, on the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, was a foul accusation, in support of which the calumniator tendered no evidence, because he knew it was a libel, and when a solemn Commission of Judges was appointed, this detestable slanderer, according to the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman, upon some of these allegations—it might be the most damaging—would offer no evidence because he know that there was none. "What would honest men do? According to the right hon. Gentleman, they, being in the presence of the disgraceful slanderers, who attributed to them the most hideous acts without a bit of evidence being tendered against them, were to come forward as accused persons and tender evidence themselves. In the face of the country they would say—"We treat The Times with the scorn and the disdain which every honest man will treat them with." When a newspaper capable, according to the friendly hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, of having made those statements, and when a Commission was appointed to inquire into the truth of them, this same journal, which calls itself a respectable journal, offered no evidence in support of them, would be a degradation to all journalism in every part of the world. Was anyone entitled to expect that honest men would come forward to tender themselves for examination in respect of charges in support of which this foul slanderer offered no evidence at all? He knew, if he were one of those men, he would say—"A fig for your Commission! I will have nothing to do with it. I am not coming forward to tender an explanation of a disgraceful matter of this kind." According to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, a man was to be compelled to come forward when there was not even an attempt to give colour to the charges, and he was to be sent to prison if he did not attend. Did the right hon. Gentleman call that common sense or common justice? Very likely the hon. and learned Solicitor General would get up and make one of his little speeches, the same as he had made a short time ago, in defence of the course to be taken; but the common sense of the House and the country would repudiate it, and apply to it some of the principles of common sense. It was perfectly obvious that in a case of this kind The Times newspaper was free to inquire into anything else but the charges and allegations. This was not a Bill to inquire into everything and anything. If The Times newspaper could not come forward to support the allegations, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary admits in some cases might occur, why should any honest man be called upon to submit himself to examination with regard to them? Why, the judicial proceedings before the Commission would be a farce. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what would happen if The Times were to sidle out from supporting the charges they had made. The Times would be hooted out of all society; it would be a case, not of ssolvuntur risu tabulœ, but of solvuntur indignatione tabulœ. Either The Times must come forward and attempt to produce reasonable evidence, or else the whole thing was at end. The whole plan of this arrangement was perfectly intolerable. The Government declined to enumerate the number of persons who were to be put in peril by these monstrous calulmniators. It might be said that there were hundreds and thousands whose character was to be put at stake by the slanderer who, according to the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman, was to offer no evidence before the Commission. If there were only one man in peril, he would be entitled to say that, under such circumstances, the inquiry was not only an injustice but an absurdity.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was quite mistaken in saying that he was going to make the same speech which be had made on the previous clause. He was in the habit of adapting his speeches to the circumstances of the case. He had at least more than one speech; he had made a speech on the former occasion appropriate to it, and he would now make one adapted to the present subject. He would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into his speculations with regard to the conduct of this tribunal in investigating the charges. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were dealing with a calumniator and a base, detestable slanderer, and so on.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he begged pardon. He said, on the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that a man who made charges and allegations, and tendered no evidence in support of them, was a base calumniator.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken about detestable slanderers and calumniators, and had coupled with that an attack on The Times, in which he practically stated that The Times was a calumniator. He did not challenge the right of anyone to hold that opinion, but that was the very question which the Commission had to decide. If the accusations of The Times turned out to be baseless, the right hon. Gentleman would have full liberty and justification for indulging in his own peculiar vein of oratory. No one would then grudge him the satisfaction, and hon. Gentlemen on those Benches would be glad to avail themselves of his vigorous voice in denunciation. On the other hand, if these accusations turned out to be true, the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, as Parliament had constituted this tribunal to consider whether the accusations were true or false, he was a little premature in his use of those epithets with which he had so lavishly strewn his speech. The right hon. Gentleman contended that, if evidence was not tendered against certain persons, they would be entitled to say—"A fig for your Commission," and to set it at nought. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken there. This tribunal was established by Act of Parliament for the purpose of discovering what was the truth with regard to these very serious matters, and hon. Members might depend upon it that the Commission would discover the truth, and would be strong enough to bring before it anyone who could give information to enable it to report on the subject. His right hon. Friend had never suggested that The Times might shrink entirely from the discussion, and abstain from calling evidence; but if this clause were accepted the result would be rather remarkable. The clause provided that nobody should be called upon to deal with anything that might imply accusations against him until some evidence with regard to them had been tendered to the Commissioners. In the first place, he was not sure whether the Commissioners would consider it as a matter of tendering evidence at all; when they had read the articles it would be open to them to say what branch of the question they would begin upon, and what evidence they would require from any person, whether it came from The Times or others mentioned in the course of the proceedings. He was not saying what course he would think it right to take if he were one of the Judges. He was only protesting against anything being said on those Benches at any time—of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite were irresponsible—which would limit the power of the Commissioners in any way whatever. Supposing that a serious accusation were being dealt with, and a person, whether a Member or not of that House, affected by that accusation, desired at once to give evidence in answer to it, the tribunal might examine him with regard to any matters before it, and it would be tying and limiting the action of the tribunal in an intolerable degree if the person before them could say—"I will not answer that question because it deals with matters on which no evidence has been produced on the other side."

MR. SEXTON

said, the clause referred to persons summoned by the Commission. He thought that if a person appeared on the table he could not excuse himself from answering questions.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had accepted the construction which he had put on the clause earlier in his speech, that nobody should be called upon to deal with anything that might imply an accusation against him until evidence had been brought forward with regard to it. But surely, where hon. Members were charged, it was not a question of summoning them to give evidence; it would not be necessary to compel them to come forward; they would be anxious to come to the tribunal and tender themselves as witnesses with reference to this matter. If it was to be a question of the tribunal having power to issue compulsory process to drag them to Court, directly the inquiry was set on foot and evidence was being taken by the Commission, the man among them who shrank from tendering himself as a witness would run very serious risk of having his character grievously damaged before the world. It would be almost as great as if he had confessed that he had participated in the actions charged. They were dealing with the case of those Gentlemen who had been asking for a Committee of the House of Commons to clear themselves, and when they had three Judges appointed to inquire into these matters, he would not do them the injustice to suppose that they would shrink from the tribunal, and that they would require to be dragged to the doors of the Court by a clause of this kind. If the clause was to be interpreted in that way, it was too trivial to be put in the Bill at all. He pointed out that the clause would be unnecessary, and that if it were adopted it would certainly not tend to the discovery of truth.

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

said, the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Solicitor General had been somewhat at fault in the arguments he had given. It often happened that Gentlemen placed in a similar position fell into mistakes. He wanted to refer to an extraordinary statement in the speech just made. It was made in answer to a clause proposed to the Bill at an earlier period of the evening, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General had then scouted the idea that anyone would be summoned before the Commission until some evidence had been given of some charge against him. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had used the argument, that it was absurd to suppose that anyone would be called upon to answer a charge before evidence was given upon it. That was exactly what the hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that evening, and it was in direct contradiction to the argument used earlier. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to have read the clause of his hon. Friend, which provided that no person should be called upon or summoned to answer such charges and allegations until evidence in support thereof had been tendered to the Commissoners. Then what was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? This again contradicted the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that evidence never having been offered as to some of the charges, we might never hear anything more about them. Supposing The Times withdrew, by its not producing evidence, the charges it had made against hon. Members, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioners would have to examine into them. This was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, that some of these charges might not be brought forward at all and no evidence offered upon them, and then he said—"You must not restrict the Judges in their examination." Supposing in the case of the forged letters, The Times being satisfied with the falsity of the charge with reference to those letters, were to offer no evidence and were to withdraw the charge and admit their falsity, yet the Judges were to examine into this matter without any intimation from The Times or not, whether they intended to produce evidence upon it. Was any position so ridiculous ever placed before a Commission? It was simply ridiculous, and it was because the Government would not accept the common and ordinary practice in every Court of every civilized country of the world that they had got themselves into this difficulty. An hon. Member had proposed, at the Committee stage, an Amendment to the effect that the Judges should draw up a statement, or decide upon the charges which were to be made. That had been rejected by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the ground that it would be restricting the power of the Judges, and the Amendment was accordingly lost. Here, again, came in the inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman. He said, on a former Amendment, that if the Judges were called upon to decide in this question, as a matter of common sense they would consider what charges should be gone into; and yet, in order to support his argument this evening, he said that the Judges might, and probably would, decide to go into all the charges which had been made and for which no evidence would be given. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Solicitor General ought to consult together on this subject. Was it to be supposed that the whole aim and object of the Government was to protect The Times? If they did not accept the clause, and after the absurd doctrine urged to-night, it could not be wondered at if the people gave an opinion adverse to the Government.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General's recollection of his Old Bailey practice did not carry much weight when compared with the Constitutional knowledge of the hon. and learned Member opposite. He wished to present to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the practical difficulty which occurred to his mind in this matter. Was it intended that this state of things should take place—that the speech of the hon. and learned At- torney General was to be placed in evidence, and that any person implicated by the statements in that speech should be summoned to give answer with reference to the charges and allegations? If it was intended that it should be sufficient for The Times to put in their own counsel's speech, and without further evidence being given in support of the charges and allegations contained in it that the persons charged were to be called upon to meet the case thus suggested against them, he might say that a more roving Commission could scarcely be devised. Let it be remembered that the hon. and learned Attorney General spoke as counsel for The Times, and it would be seen that such a proceeding was not one which the House of Commons would authorize. Unless the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could tell the Committee that this was not intended, or unless he could show that the clause was unnecessary, he should certainly vote for the clause then before the Committee.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

said, he was always glad to succeed his hon. and learned Colleague when he made a speech that was satisfactory to those who sat on that side of the House. The hon. and learned Solicitor General seemed to think it was necessary, in order to defend the constitution of the tribunal, that any lawyer who rose to discuss that matter should have had some training at the Old Bailey. He ventured to think this was not a lawyer's question, but one which should be treated by men of common sense who thoroughly appreciated public sentiment in the matter, and he was glad to see his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Staveley Hill) rise and treat it from a common sense point of view. The hon. and learned Solicitor General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary both assumed that, without The Times being required to put in any evidence in support of their charges, everyone named would be required to tender his own evidence upon the ex parte statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General. That was a position which he did not think even Members opposite were willing to take up. He was much surprised to see on the last clause that it had remained solely for the Chairman of Committees to rise and put forward what was the general opinion of the House, and to get the assent of the House to that very reasonable clause. But he hoped with regard to this clause, which might or not be capable of modification, that it would be accepted. He did not want to offer any further remarks except to say that the object of the clause was that, with regard to those individuals who happened casually to be mentioned in the articles called Parnellism and Crime or the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, it should not be necessary for any one of them to come before the Commission unless The Times supported its charges by some additional pieces of evidence. He hoped the House would assent to the principle contained in the clause of his hon. Friend, and he would, in conclusion, congratulate the House on the fact that there were one or two independent Members on the opposite Benches capable of taking a common sense view of the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said, he rose for the same purpose as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Although he did not come to the same conclusion, he desired also that this matter should be treated not as a purely legal question, but as one of common sense; and without entering into any consideration of what might possibly be the course of parties concerned, he pointed out that there was a general principle on which the House might be advised not to accept this clause. It seemed to him to be unnecessary, if they had any confidence whatever in the tribunal to be created, to set to work to fetter their proceedings. The House might be absolutely certain that no rules they might make that evening would provide for every contingency which might arise, and that circumstances would arise on which the Commissioners would be obliged to act upon their judgment and upon their knowledge of the principles of justice. Then, why were they to make a rule for this case and a rule for that case, being perfectly certain that they would not be able to make rules which would suffice for meeting every emergency that might arise? My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in a speech he just delivered, pictured to the House that it was probable, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that The Times would take a course which he characterized as of incredible meanness; and my right hon. Friend immediately arrived at the conclusion that the Commissioners would back up The Times in taking that course of incredible meanness, and relieve it of the discredit of having made charges which it is unwilling to substantiate. That appears to me to be a course so absolutely impossible that if we have any confidence whatever in the Commission we are creating it is an absolute waste of time on our part to endeavour to frame rules which will prevent that Commission from taking the course which my right hon. Friend has so described as one of incredible meanness. I would ask the House not to endeavour to embarrass the Commission by framing rules which are not necessary, and which can only be embarrassing. The course of their procedure is a matter which the Commission itself should determine, and I think we shall only waste our time and do nothing to promote the ends of justice by endeavouring to fetter the action of the Commission in regard to their rules of procedure.

MR. FIRTH

said, that the difficulty in this case had arisen from the exceptional nature of the Commission and the exceptional nature of the powers it was proposed to confer upon it. If the Commission was able to proceed as an ordinary inquiry at law, the necessity for this clause would not arise. The clause provided that no person could be called upon to answer charges until evidence had been given in respect of those charges or had been tendered to the Commission. That proposal embraced the ordinary proceding at law. That was a proposal based upon justice, upon legal precedent, on the best method of ascertaining the truth, and of doing justice between man and man. Why was this custom not followed in regard to the Commission? It was because the Commission, from root to branch, was unjust in its nature, and in its intention, and would be unjust in its effect. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes; it must be so. Why should men be called upon to answer when no charges were made against them? They were not called upon to answer in any Court of Law, and, therefore, why should they be called upon to answer before a Commission appointed by Act of Parliament. He had not himself taken much part in these discussions, but he had watched them with much interest, and he had noticed to-night the way in which propositions which would be accepted anywhere else in any form of inquiry known to our Constitution had been practically evaded in this case. There had been the question of particulars, and the question of the letters coming first, and so on. Propositions dealing with these subjects had been treated in the most extraordinary manner. There was another point why they should make the procedure of the Commission the same as in ordinary Courts of Law. It was said that they might rely upon the Commissioners. Certainly, in some respects; but the Commissioners might safely receive instructions. He might say at once that he would have no hesitation in trusting himself, or his dearest friend, to the honour of the three Commissioners to be appointed under the Act; but he submitted that these Gentlemen would be themselves extremely puzzled as to what course to take and what line to pursue. ["No, no!"] Well, if they were not, that was surely a reason why they should pursue the ordinary line followed in ordinary actions for libel. Most hon. Members were familiar with the procedure which would be adopted if the case were an action for libel, and he apprehended that, after all, justice was the thing they were supposed to be aiming at. Supposing the Judges had no instructions whatever, and supposing they took the course which his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary suggested the other night, when the question of the letters was under discussion, the matter would be a very serious one indeed, as it would tend to bring the men who administered the Common Law under an amount of animadversion that he would be sorry to see them under. He believed that his hon. Friends on that side of the House did a certain amount of injustice to the Judges; but be that as it might, he was of opinion that the Judges should be required, as a matter of ordinary justice, to take a course which was a settled one in similar proceedings at law—a course in accordance with justice—namely, that the persons against whom charges were brought in The Times articles, as well as other men, should be deemed to be and should be treated as innocent until evidence had been given to prove them guilty.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said, it struck him, in listening to the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that the noble Marquess would not have addressed his observations to the House if he had first listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Solicitor General. If the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Solicitor General had been made in the same spirit as that in which the noble Marquess had spoken, he (Mr. T. C. Harrington) would have had some difficulty in meeting the argument against the acceptance of the clause. If they had been told that they should have confidence in the Commission, and that the House might rest satisfied that the Commissioners would not depart from the usual method of conducting these cases, the House would have been in a totally different position. But the two speeches from the Treasury Benches showed that not only was it possible for the Commission to depart from the usual procedure adopted by Courts of Law, but that it was in the minds of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken for the Government to use what influence they could to induce the Commissioners to depart from that ordinary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had argued that if The Times did not come forward and specify the charges that the Irish Members might not be permitted to give evidence. The point was not whether or not they might be permitted to go before the Commissioners, but whether or not the power should reside with the Commissioners of being able to compel them to go up for the purpose of subjecting themselves to a fishing cross-examination on the part of The Times. That was the tender of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary opposite. It was useless to tell the House that the characters of Irish Members were at stake in this matter, and that they must not hamper the Commission with the objectionable proposal which was here made. If the suggestion before the House went no further than usual procedure in Courts of Law, and no accusation could be made against a man before the Commission had power to compel him to come up and answer it, how did they interfere with the discretion, or in any way impede the progress of the Commission by laying this down as an express rule? They were now in a much worse position than if this question had never been raised at all. For his own part, he had thought that the clause was quite unnecessary, and he had expressed the opinion to some of his hon. Friends that such was the case; but having listened to the two speeches of the Government Representatives opposite, not only did he think that the clause was necessary, but that if they did not have it they would go into the case with their hands tied.

MR. CLANCY

said, that what had been stated by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale showed how the Unionist policy had developed. Unionists began by denying Home Rule to the Irish Party, then they passed a stringent Coercion Bill, and now they declared that men were bound to prove their innocence before even a primâ facie case was made against them. To his (Mr. Clancy's) mind, the effect of the speech of the noble Marquess was altogether against the clause, and in favour of the Government in seeking to invert the great principles which guided the administration of justice in England, and which no Government would dare to invert except in the case of Irish Members. He had thought they had heard quite enough about the distrust felt by the Irish Members of the Judges who formed this Commission, and the insults thereby inflicted by those Judges—that argument had been used now usque ad nauseam. The fact was that rules were frequently inserted in Acts of Parliament compelling Judges to do certain things or restraining them from doing certain other things. But according to the noble Marquess they could not pass a single rule as affecting the conduct of the Judge without deliberately insulting that Judge. Surely the noble Marquess was aware that Acts of Parliament had been passed containing all codes of rules for the control of the action of the Judges, and he had never heard it said that any one of these proceedings in Acts of Parliament had been looked upon as offering an insult to the Judges of England. The noble Marquess said that the proposal now made would show a want of confidence in the Judges. Well, to express want of confidence in a Judge was, no doubt, to insult him. He (Mr. Clancy) desired chiefly to remark that they now knew why the Government declined to produce the schedule of charges. They had heard it said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to-night that it was possible that no primâ facie evidence might be given to any single charge or allegation made in The Times articles. The right hon. Gentleman had stated quite distinctly that it was perfectly possible for The Times not to give a single piece of evidence in support of any charge or allegation which they had made.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he had twice positively contradicted that statement. What he said was that there might be some allegations with regard to which evidence might not be tendered.

MR. CLANCY

said, he did not see any difference between that statement and the statement he had made. He submitted that they now knew why it was that the Government had refused their demand for a schedule of charges. It would appear that the Government knew from the commencement that The Times was not going to present any evidence in favour of some of the charges. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughed, he (Mr. Clancy) supposed at the insinuation that the Government were in collusion with The Times. Well, he (Mr. Clancy) had his own opinion upon that subject, and so had they all on that (the Opposition) side of the House; and the course of the discussion had not tended to dispel that opinion in the least. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the course of the discussion had certainly not disturbed that opinion—the admission that there might be some points on which The Times might not advance any evidence. That admission confirmed him (Mr. Clancy) in the opinion he had always held that there was collusion between the Government and The Times on this matter. But now it appeared that they were to have no schedule of charges; that they were to have no schedule of persons and no particulars of charges advanced, and now it seemed that they were to have no substantive proof offered of a single charge—or at any rate they might not have such substantive proof. Furthermore, it seemed that they were now to have an inversion of rules of procedure never seen in England before. Under the proposed system they did away with the old rule that a man was to be considered innocent until his guilt was proved, and that it lay with the accuser to prove a man's guilt. He hoped the House and the country would understand to-morrow morning and hereafter that the Government were contending against a principle which in the case of an English Member, or a Scotch Member, or a Welsh Member, they would not dare to contend against. They would contend only against this principle in the case of an Irish Member. He desired in the strongest manner to draw attention to the fact that even on this clause the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party did not think it becoming in him to keep silent, but found it necessary to stand up and speak for the Government.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had done some injustice to the noble Marquess. So far from having opposed the clause in the sense and the spirit in which he (Sir Charles Russell) understood it to be opposed by the hon. and learned Solictor General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the noble Marquess had opposed it in an entirely different sense and spirit. On the first reading of the clause he (Sir Charles Russell) had come to the conclusion and had expressed the opinion that it was not a clause which was in any sense necessary, because he could not, for one, feel the least doubt that a Commission of Judges of the eminence of those who were to form this inquiry would proceed by analogy with the proceedings of Courts of Law, and would not dream of calling accused persons to answer accusations of which no evidence whatever had been advanced. But he (Sir Charles Russell) was bound to point out—and he did so without offence—that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had given to this clause an importance which otherwise it did not possess. If, even now, it could be gathered from the statements of Gentlemen on the Government Bench that the Government were opposing this clause not because they desired the Commission to pursue such an extraordinary course of proceeding as had been suggested, but because of the reason put forward by the noble Marquess that it was absolutely unnecessary to point out the course which obviously the Judges would take, he did not think the discussion would occupy any length of time. After what had occurred, however, and in reference to the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, he hoped the House would come to a decision favourable to the clause—and he trusted the House would do so as speedily as possible.

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

said, that with regard to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Solicitor General, it was perfectly clear that the object of the Government was to suggest to The Times the exact method of procedure which they should adopt. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had distinctly pointed out that it was possible for the hon. and learned Attorney General to tender his speech in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter" to the Commissioners without supporting it by evidence. There could be no doubt that The Times would proceed upon that suggestion, and would give such evidence as it chose to give in regard to certain charges and would omit to give evidence as to other charges. The course would be by general charges and allegations to implicate as many Irish Members as possible, and having done so, those Members would be called before the Commission and asked to prove their innocence. He (Mr. M. J. Kenny) was not disposed to doubt the honour or the uprightness of the Judges who would form the Commission, or to doubt that they would prevent The Times from playing any such trick; but even if the Commission was to be relied upon perfectly, that surely was no argument against the acceptance of this clause. The words of the clause were not words of limitation at all, but were simply words of direction, and when the House remembered that this was the only rule which was now sought to be applied to the action of the Judges in this inquiry, he thought it would be seen that it was one which might well be favourably received. He thought, moreover, that the voice of the hon. and learned Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) was one to which the Government ought not to turn a deaf ear, seeing that he was one of their own supporters. So far as this Commission was concerned, as it was at present proposed to constitute it, it would bear the strongest resemblance to one of the secret Courts under the Crimes Act. They would be able to call anyone before them and say—"Prove your innocence, or else we shall report that you are guilty of the accusations made against you." They would, he presumed, be able to conduct their inquiry in secret, and to ask any person any question they thought fit. In conclusion, he must say he was surprised and astonished to see the hon. and learned Solicitor General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, both distinguished lawyers, stand up and say that it would be unfair and unreasonable to apply to the Commissioners one of the first and elementary rules of procedure in connection with leading inquiries in this country.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, that with the indulgence of the House—and he could only speak again with that indulgence—he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he intended that persons who were charged under the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter" were to be called on to answer those charges before any primâ facie evidence at all was given further than the allegations of The Times?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it was only by the indulgence of the House that he also could speak. He intended nothing of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but only exactly what the Bill said. Three Judges of the highest standing and character in this country were to inquire into the subject matter which had been laid before the public in a certain series of newspaper articles. Those Judges could inquire into that matter by any method they thought fit, just as a Coroner, holding an inquiry into the cause of the death of an individual, might summon before him any witnesses who, in his opinion, were likely to throw light upon the matter.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, that whilst in common with every other Member of the House he felt absolute confidence in those who were to try the case, he could not help feeling that there was a great deal of force in some of the arguments used by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. This inquiry, if he were not mistaken, was to go into certain articles which had been issued from time to time, and into an important speech delivered in a recent trial. He did not see how these articles and this speech could be called primâ facie evidence. In criminal trials in this country there was a prior investigation before the Grand Jury; but the procedure under the present measure would be different, and if all the Irish Members came forward to give evidence to rebut charges made against them before a primâ facie case was made out, they would have the Commission sitting for an intolerably long time. Was the idea to be that these hon. Members and everybody else were to prove their innocence? If that was so, he could not assent to it. He thought that first of all they should have allegations brought against them in order that they might know in what manner they were to defend characters. Certainly, if the clause were pressed to a Division, he should vote for it.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made his remarkable speech at the beginning of the evening he (Mr. Winterbotham) had had the audacity to laugh, and the right hon. Gentleman had called attention to that laugh. But the question was no laughing matter. He did not wish to say anything about the legal aspect of the case; but rather as it would be regarded by ordinary common sense men of business in the country, and as it would be regarded by jurists in America and on the Continent, who were watching the proceedings of this House, and who, he submitted, when they know what was being done, would think the refusal of this clause unworthy of the justice and fair play of Englishmen. What really did the opposition to this clause mean? The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General distinctly meant this—that this book Parnellism and Crime (with a sort of inspired sanctity about it, like the Koran) was to be thrown before the Commission, without any proof being brought forward as to the truth of the allegations and accusations it contained unless The Times chose to bring such forward. The Times, it seemed, moreover, was to decide how many of these charges it should endeavour to substantiate and how many it should not. Certain Members of Parliament had originally been assured that this Bill was brought in for their benefit—as an act of justice to enable them to clear their characters before the country—they were to "take it or leave it," in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The Bill now had reduced itself to this—that these foul accusations of crime were to be thrown upon the Irish Members without any evidence whatever being required in support of them, and hon. Members were to be expected to come forward before the Commission and answer those charges. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; that was so most distinctly, however much hon. Members opposite cried out "No." That was the way in which the country would regard it, and that was the way in which the world would regard it. Two of the Members on the Front Ministerial Bench had said that when the statements contained in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General and in Parnellism and Crime were before the Commission it was to be expected that the Irish Members would come forward and tender themselves as witnesses, and neither wait until they were summoned or for evidence to be adduced, but to require that, he submitted, was a denial of English fair play. He was extremely glad that two Members on the other side of the House had stood up on behalf of fair play, and on behalf of those of their Colleagues on the Opposition side of the House whose characters were attacked. He (Mr. Winterbotham) should be surprised if it were not found, when the Division was taken, that a great many more Members on the Ministerial side of the House went into the Lobby to protest against this abominably unjust proceeding of the Government.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said, he must express his astonishment at the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the opinion of the whole House and the whole world upon this matter. If the whole world supposed what the hon. Member seemed to think, the whole world would go round in a most extraordinary and foolish way. The fallacy which underlay a great many speeches which he (Mr. Addison) had heard to-night was too evident for any lawyer not to see through it. If it had not been for the respect he felt for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) he should have said he would not have been very much astonished indeed to hear any lawyer of standing say a word in favour of the clause or in support of speeches which had been made by hon. Members opposite, seeing that those speeches proceeded on the fallacious notion that The Times on the one hand and the hon. Member for Cork on the other were to fight this matter out as a sort of legal fence as between A and B—that was to say, that the proceedings were to be guided by the rules and procedure applicable to Common Law trials. But that was not so. The Commission was not to try a case as between A and B, but to try the statements and arguments which both parties put forward. If The Times were to keep dark, as hon. Members opposite suggested they would, the result would be that the Commissioners would send for The Times or those responsible for the production of that journal, and cross-examine them upon their acts and allegations. That at once showed the difference between an inquiry of this kind and a sort of legal fence where all the rules of the game were to be observed. He (Mr. Addison) had said these few words, because he had been unable to sit there any longer and listen to the speeches which were being made with that patience which he usually displayed—he had been unable to sit there as "One who dareth not, and in whose mouth is no reproof."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 178: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 264.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he begged to move— Provided that the Commissioners shall hear the evidence of all persons produecd as witnesses by or on behalf of any person affected by any of such charges or allegations. He had asked that the accuser should be called upon to state his case before the persons charged were called on to reply, but that claim had been denied. The Government, by their majority, had denied to Members of that House and to others concerned the application of a primary and indispensable rule of justice which had never in the legal procedure of this country yet been denied to the worst or meanest criminal. The hon. and learned Solicitor General, however, thought that, even if the provision of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should prove correct, and that The Times should abstain from making good its charges, the Commission would be strong enough to compel everyone to pay attention to its behests and to absolve himself from the charge which had been made. He (Mr. Sexton) ventured most respectfully to doubt that. He thought he knew enough of the public opinion of this country—he had some little knowledge of the English people, and he ventured to hope that the public opinion of England would sustain a public man or a Member of a particular Party who scorned to take any knowledge of the ribaldry and the venom of The Times, the hereditary enemy of Ireland and the Irish race, if, when the time came, this cowardly libeller skulked in the dark and forebore to bring his charges to the proof. It remained, however, to be seen what would happen. He was content, now that the House had determined that matter, to waive that point; but he would ask that, if the case against the Irish Members was not to be made out, that, at least, they themselves should be allowed to make a case. He could understand, in the case of a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into public and notorious facts, where no charges were made against persons—the case, for instance, of the outrages in Sheffield, and of the Belfast riots—he could understand that the Commissioners in such cases might take upon themselves the functions of deciding what evidence should be collected and what should not, because it was manifest that in such cases they should be able to determine in regard to public facts not touching individuals, at what stage of their inquiry they had received a sufficiency of evidence. But he submitted respectfully, that when the characters of individuals were concerned and charges were made against persons, the Commissioners would not be in a position to judge when a sufficiency of evidence had been given. [Interruption.] There was an easy way out of the difficulty that hon. Members opposite seemed to make—he could move the adjournment of the debate. The time had come when the House seemed to be weary, or when the House appeared disposed to indecision, which was the same thing. What he was endeavouring to point out was, that the Commissioners, when no charge was made against individuals, might easily decide that sufficient evidence had been given, but that where the characters of individuals were concerned, and where people were placed upon their defence, and where the results, though they would not be in the nature of actual punishment in the shape of imprisonment, would be as serious and as grave as though the highest punishment known to the law could be inflicted, it was not for the Commissioners to decide when sufficient evidence had been tendered. No one could be in that position but the persons concerned. He would put it in this way—suppose the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) without any case having been previously made by The Times—and they might look forward to that possibility, grotesque as it might seem—supposing the hon. Member for Cork were placed on his defence, would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in regard to any evidence the Commissioners might be justified to call, contend that the Commissioners were the Judges as to whether that evidence was likely to be material or not? He (Mr. Sexton) submitted that no one but the hon. Member for Cork or his counsel could have any idea whether the evidence was or was not material and indispensable. It might perhaps be than when his hon. Friend opened his case, whether it was after The Times had made its case or before, he might be called upon to continue it and complete it without information from the other side. He might have brought his witnesses together from various parts of the world at great expense, and might not be allowed to examine them. However wise and sagacious the Commissioners might be, he contended that they were not and could not be in a position to determine whether or not certain evidence would be material, and that, therefore, discretion as to the calling of witnesses should obviously rest with his hon. Friend. If the Commissioners refused to call one witness tendered by his hon. Friend, or of any other person charged, would the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary deny that by that refusal they might not commit a fatal error against justice? Would he not admit, at any rate, that if the Commissioners refused to call a witness, the person who desired that witness to be called would be for ever afterwards able to impeach the inquiry, and say that he had been denied a fair opportunity of making his defence? He waited with some anxiety the reply of the Government on that point. Did it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that in a case like this, involving the names and characters of the persons charged with crime or criminality, and residing out of the jurisdiction of the Queen, it might be impossible for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, or for any other person charged, to procure the evidence required to enable him to establish his innocence, unless by the adoption of the rule that the person whom he proposed to call might be assured that if he came into Court he would be examined, and that after the disclaimers he might make he would be entitled to a certificate of indemnity. This was all he desired to say. He placed these two principles before the House. If this clause was not carried, the case would stand thus—that The Times would not be under any obligation to proceed to prove its case, and that the Irish Members would be placed in the position of having to reply to a case which had not been proved, and in regard to which they might be at any moment so embarrassed by the proceedings of the Commissioners as to make it impossible for them to present a complete defence. That, he maintained, would in a double aspect amount to a scandalous denial of justice, and he left the House to imagine what course public men would feel it necessary to adopt if they were placed under such conditions.

Clause (Hearing of all persons produced as witnesses,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that before the debate proceeded any further on this clause he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) if he did not think that the hour had now arrived at which they could suspend the extremely laborious operation which the House had been allowed to go through since 4 o'clock that evening. The right hon. Gentleman knew that hon. Gentlemen had to be in the House again at 12 o'clock to-morrow (Wednesday), within 10 hours of the present time. He did not himself think that the remaining clauses would occupy any considerable period, and he was glad to be able to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in the statement that the debate on the clauses this evening, although the subjects dealt with were very grave, had been adopted in a spirit of good temper and moderation. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House himself would say that too long a time had been spent on the discussion. With one exception—namely, a conflict between the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in which time, the Government would say, had been wasted by the latter, but in which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) believed that time had been wasted by the right hon. Gentleman, the debate to-night had been terse and relevant, and he thought that he could venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to subject the House, as it was showing all the signs of weariness, to further labour. He would propose that the small remaining portion of the clauses should be postponed for consideration to-morrow. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not take the admission he made that the amount of work to be done in connection with the clauses was small, as an argument against his sug- gestion, but would remember that it was a much more serious thing to spend two or three hours at this late period of the night in discussing clauses than it would be to devote a similar period to their consideration to-morrow.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he fully appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken, but he thought the House really desired, if possible, to conclude the Bill to-night. Any postponement of the measure must involve another day's delay and possibly put back the holidays—which they were all looking forward to—for a day. He would not insist upon going on with the Bill if he did not think that the House had disposed of the most important questions on the Paper and if he did not believe there was now a disposition on the part of the House to come to a decision on the questions which still remained for consideration. He trusted that the House generally would support him in the view he took and would allow the proceedings on this Bill to be concluded to-night.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least allow the debate to go on for an hour longer, but he did not think that they could enter into any engagement with the Government that the whole of the clauses should be disposed of to-night, as that question would very much depend upon the character of the discussions which might arise. He did not think that anyone could say that the discussions which had taken place during the last two or three hours had been unimportant. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) on one of the clauses just now, showed the extreme importance of the discussion. He thought that they might be allowed to go on and see what progress would be made.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not move, and he did not intend to move, the adjournment of the debate, and he should be very happy to assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that they should go on for another hour.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could not accept the clause which had been moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton as they might as well provide that the witnesses should not be gagged or handcuffed. He was sorry to have to oppose these clauses so persistently, but every one of them seemed to be irrelevant to the inquiry.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

suggested that the clause should not be pressed. The words implied that there might be some specific issues raised which were irrelevant to those to be decided, and the clause, therefore, applied to evidence which would be irrelevant to those issues.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had placed upon the Paper a clause which, having regard to the advanced hour, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept without discussion—[Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] As the right hon. Gentleman did not accept it he should have to offer a few arguments in support of it. His proposal was that so far as related to the charges and allegations against Members of Parliament, the proceedings should be conducted in the same manner as in a case of libel. Now, the necessity for the clause had been emphasized and increased by some of the discussions which had taken place on previous clauses, and especially by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the clauses of his hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast. He wanted to guard against hon. Members being asked to defend themselves before any charges were made and under circumstances which might make very unequal the struggle between them and their assail ants. He did not think that in asking this he was making an unreasonable request. If any one were to take action against The Times, the proprietor would be called upon to substantiate the charges before the other parties would be required to make defence. If that was so, why should the rules which had been imposed on Courts of Law by the common consent of centuries be altogether altered or reversed? It was not fair that hon. Members should be called upon to enter upon their defence before any charges were made against them; nor was it fair that The Times should not be called upon to take the ordinary and common-sense course of bringing forward proof. He put these two arguments forward with confidence, and expected the Government would accept the clause.

Clause (Proceedings to be conducted as in an action for libel,)—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor,)—brought up, and read the first time:—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the effect of the Clause would be to force hon. Gentlemen opposite to do the very thing against which they argued for two hours the other night. He thought hon. Members had misconceived the whole theory with regard to their coming forward. The clause would plainly have the effect of preventing the Commissioners embarking on any cause of inquiry which, if evidence arose, might be of the utmost importance. He did not say that the Members of Parliament concerned would not act with perfect fairness, but he did not see how they could take upon themselves to speak for other persons. Other persons were much more severely attacked, and he did not see, if the Clause were accepted, what would be the course of action taken with regard to them.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he proposed to amend the Clause by adding "and other persons."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he could hardly grasp the idea of a case of libel in which there were thousands of plaintiffs, each of whom would open his case and each of whom would have the right of reply.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he must, in following the right hon. Gentleman Home Secretary, begin by saying that he did not think his answer had shown that he realized the importance and significance of this clause. If he had, certainly he thought the House would agree that he had not given very Satisfactory reasons for refusing to accept it. The first observation the right hon. Gentleman made was that it was entirely inconsistent with Amendments which had been previously proposed, and he said that in a case of libel the plaintiff would be obliged to go into the witness-box. That was so, provided a case were made out for him to answer. The right hon. Gentleman seemed entirely to forget that the case of Mr. O'Donnell failed, not because he would not go into the witness-box, but because the Judge ruled that 19–20ths of the libel had no reference to him at all, and with regard to the rest that the jury found it was fair comment on his conduct. How did this matter stand? In a case of libel where the charges were defined in time, place, and circumstance, and where the disproof rested mainly or entirely on the knowledge or upon the evidence of the plaintiff, it was undoubtedly the custom straightway to put the plaintiff into the witness-box; but, on the other hand, where the charges extended over a considerable period of time and embraced a great body of charges, and those charges were conveyed rather by insinuation than by direct statement and accusation, then he said it would be, generally speaking, unwise and impolitic to put the plaintiff in the box in the first instance. If what he had said were correct, and he believed it would be readily assented to by those acquainted with the subject, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground, because the evidence of persons charged would not be required until there was at least a primâ facie case in justification. The next point of the right hon. Gentleman was that the clause was based upon an entirely mistaken view of the character of the Bill and that this was not a matter of litigation between The Times on the one hand and certain Members of Parliament on the other. But what was the Bill? It was entitled, "Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill," and the Preamble was that certain charges and allegations had been made against certain Members of Parliament and other persons by the defendants in the course of the proceedings in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another." Therefore they had, as the foundation of the proceedings, the charges and allegations coming from the defendants in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and they had those charges and allegations levelled at certain Members of Parliament; and he wanted to know, so far as those charges and allegations were concerned, what was the objection to pursuing the true and accurate analogy of proceedings in action for libel, because the clause did not apply to charges and allegations against other persons—it was confined, as far as he understood, to Members of Parliament. He admitted that the Bill had two objects—one of those was inquiry into the charges and allegations against Members of Parliament, and the other took the form of what he might call a wider inquiry into charges and allegations against other persons. With regard to the second branch of the Inquiry, the clause was not applicable to that at all, but with regard to the first branch he submitted that no reason had been given why the analogy of action for libel should not be followed. He pointed out that in taking this view of the matter the Government might feel certain to have the sanction of The Times; because in an article on the 17th of July The Times used these words:— We are compelled to assume that Mr. Parnell will place himself unreservedly in the came position before the judicial tribunal to be constituted by the Bill, as that in which he would have stood if he had been in the position of the plaintiff in the recent inquiry. Therefore the Government need not fear that they would not have the approval of The Times in taking this course. When the hon. Member for Cork made his demand specifically that he should have this right, almost in the words of this clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary followed him, and in relation to that demand used the language which he had already referred to—namely, that it should be a judicial inquiry, and that he was very pleased to accede to the demand of the hon. Gentleman; and at a later stage of the discussion, when he (Sir Charles Russell) remarked that the right hon. Gentleman conceded that this should be a judicial proceeding as the hon. Member for Cork wished, the right hon. Gentleman said— I was answering the demand of the hon. Member for Cork, who said, 'We demand to be treated as if we were plaintiffs in an action for libel, with counsel to open our case and reply.' That was the language of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he had read that himself once before. It was not accurately reported.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL

The right hon. Gentleman was quoting it in order to point to the demand made that this should be a judicial inquiry, and he said that the case was to be treated as in an action for libel, with counsel to open the case and reply. He said the right hon. Gentleman was then making a concession, and that the hon. Member for Cork, who claimed to be in no worse position before the Commission than he would be in if, in the language of The Times' article, he had assumed the position of plaintiff in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." He said that the demand made was intrinsically just, and that it did not narrow the scope of the inquiry into any of the charges against the Members of Parliament named, or against the conduct of other persons in connection with them, which would be full, absolute, and unmistakable. For these reasons, he thought the clause was one which the Government might fairly accept; he saw no mischief to the cause of truth and justice in it, and he felt certain that if it were accepted it would facilitate the passage of the Bill.

MR. FINLAY

said, he had not heard any serious arguments adduced in support of the distinction which the clause proposed to make between Members of Parliament and other persons. On what principle of common sense or justice was one measure to be applied to those who happened to be Members of Parliament and another measure to those who did not happen to be so? He would call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend (sir Charles Russell) to one or two points. He agreed with his remarks as to the practice in cases of libel, but pointed out that the charges against the hon. Member for Cork were definite enough in regard to the letters. He should be amazed if his hon. and learned Friend were to suggest that in any action brought by the hon. Member for Cork against The Times newspaper in respect of their charging him with having written those letters, the hon. Member should not go into the witness-box. Would not his hon. and learned Friend put the hon. Member for Cork into the witness-box in the first instance? He felt sure that that course would be taken by his hon. and learned Friend if he had charge of the case. When a definite charge was made, he apprehended it would be contrary to the rule of the Court and the ordinary practice not to put the plaintiff in an action for libel into the box. He felt confident and sanguine that his hon. and learned Friend would agree that, although this clause proposed that the same practice should be adopted as if the inquiry were an action for libel in which the hon. Members were plaintiffs, such an action had never been heard of. He ventured to say that his right hon. Friend had never heard of a large number of persons joining together in one action with respect to a variety of charges affecting them differently. There was no precedent for the proposal; it was absolutely unintelligible, and would throw upon the Commissioners a task absolutely impossible.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 169: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 265.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he begged to move the following Clause:— The Commissioners may, in their discretion, at any stage of the inquiry, order any person appearing before them in support of any of the said charges and allegations to specify such charge or allegation in such manner, and with such particulars, as the Commissioners may deem to be necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The Government had refused to give them a Schedule of the charges in the Bill, and had done that because they were so chivalrous-minded that they would not become accusers. They had also refused to direct that The Times should specify charges; and now he proposed that if it should appear to the Commissioners to be necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that any charge should be specific and particularized, they should have power to order such specification to be made and such particulars to be given. He was bound in theory—in Parliamentary theory—to suppose that the Government were impartial in the case, although he was certain that this inquiry was the subject of Party hopes and Party fears amongst hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, which hopes and fears were none the less strong because those who entertained them had not the courage or the honesty to avow them. It might happen in regard to a vague charge or allegation in the course of this inquiry that where opportunities were given the investigation might be facilitated by a curtailment of evidence and a conse- quent saving of time. What was the position of the Judges? The Government regarded them with unbounded confidence. They refused to lay down any rule or even to put any suggestion in the Bill for their guidance, and the result was that their discretion would be absolutely unlimited. They were, no doubt, right in having unbounded confidence in the Judges, seeing that they had selected them from their own particular adherents. But the House would acknowledge that men would not cease to have political opinions and prejudices because they were appointed to the position of Judge. The Government had, as a matter of fact, selected three political supporters of their own to inquire into the action of their political opponents; therefore, they were justified in feeling confidence in them. They would admit, therefore, that if the Judges thought it necessary and expedient in the interests of justice to do this thing that he suggested in the clause, the thing ought to be done. If it were not necessary in the interests of justice to order witnesses to specify charges, the Judge would not make such order; but if it were necessary, they should have power to do it.

Clause (Specifications of allegations by persons appearing before Commissioners,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it was now 10 minutes past 2 o'clock. About 40 minutes ago the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Derby suggested that they should go on for an hour or so longer; but all Members of the House did not possess the magnificent physique of his right hon. Friend. They had been sitting for over 10 hours, and if they disposed of the Bill in half-an-hour it would, perhaps, even yet, be reasonable to go on; but he did not think it was possible to go through the Bill in that space of time. Under the circumstances, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Laboucheres.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he must appeal to the House to make further progress with the measure. He did not wish to at all press the point beyond the understanding at which they had arrived 40 minutes ago; but it appeared to him that they could, without any difficulty whatever, dispose of the new clauses before the adjournment of the House. It was impossible to dispose of the Report altogether, although he thought they might have done so if hon. Gentlemen had cared to make the effort, and had been a little more moderate in the length of their observations.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the misfortune, which he lamented as much as the right hon. Gentleman, was now upon them, because the House now saw that it was impossible to conclude to-night the whole of the Report stage. He submitted that it was only a common sense view to take, that if they were to have some of this Bill left over until the next Sitting, it would be just as well for them to postpone the remaining new Clauses as well as the remaining Amendments. It would only be a question of half-an-hour or a quarter of an hour at the next Sitting, which was very little in a day's Business when hon. Members had had some sleep; but it was a very serious consideration at such an hour as this. Re was sure his hon. Friends would, at the next Sitting, if the debate were now adjourned, con fine their observations within reasonable limits.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he must again appeal to hon. Gentlemen to go on, as he believed they could finish the new clause in a very few moments. His object was to endeavour to advance the Bill and serve the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. He did not, however, wish to enter into any contest in the matter. If hon. Gentlemen were content to give a little more time to the debate, he thought they would have no difficulty in finishing the new clauses. He would point out that it was the intention of the Government to accept the new clause which stood next on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor).

MR. ANDERSON

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at 12 o'clock at the next Sitting they were going to consider 600 clauses of the Scottish Burgh (Police) Bill? Had the right hon. Gentleman any consideration for the Scotch Members who were anxious to take part in the debate on the present Bill, and who were also looking forward to an interesting discussion on matters in which Irish Members took no interest. Supposing the clauses of the present Bill were not concluded to-night, would they be taken at 12 o'clock to-day or would they be postponed?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that it was because he wanted to fulfil his pledge to Scotch Members that he was anxious to finish this Bill in the present Sitting. If the Report stage was not concluded now, they must resume it at 12 o'clock to-day, a proceeding which would seriously delay Scotch Business and the adjournment of the House, which they were all anxious to arrive at.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would bring into force some of his well-known common sense in this matter. He would ask him how hon. Members could possibly be at Prayers at 12 o'clock if they were to go on Sitting beyond the present hour? They used to have difficulty in getting to the House in good time on Wednesdays after a long Sitting under the old system; but now they were out of practice altogether, and it would be impossible for them to get to bed before a quarter to 3 o'clock, and they would then only have nine hours to sleep and eat their breakfast, and would have to be back here at 12 o'clock.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he should like to ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite if there was any possibility of arriving at an understanding as to the hour at which the Bill should be read to-morrow?

MR. LABOUCHERE

No.

MR. W. H. SMITH

was anxious to suit the convenience of the House and at the same time forward the Business of the House. He should be glad to do that if possible, and he would put it to the Irish Members whether it was not possible to arrive at some understanding in the matter?

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not know whether that was quite a fair question to put, as he did not carry the opinions of English Members on that side of the House in his pocket; but if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to get through the now clauses, the advice he would venture to give would be that if the House could not settle down to that task the right hon. Gentleman would do well to save both his own energies and the energies of the House by agreeing to the adjournment at once. He (Mr. Parnell) quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the new clauses would not occupy a long time, especially after the concession he had made with regard to the clause standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. The discussion on the remaining clauses would not take a long time, either now or at the next Sitting. He did not, however, think that it was a very practical question that was being insisted upon at the present moment, either on one side or the other, and he would suggest that they should be a little more reasonable, and that if they were to go on to-night they should, instead of wasting time disputing over the Motion for Adjournment, go on with the new clauses and try to settle the matter, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would agree to an adjournment at once.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought it would be well to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork, and finish the new clauses now.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman. Did he mean to say that when they had finished the new clauses they should conclude the Bill altogether? Or, that the understanding was to be when the new clauses were disposed of, the debate should be adjourned? His (Mr. Labouchere's) intervention, he might say, was perfectly benevolent, as he was going to bed.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the understanding was, that when they had finished the new clauses they should postpone the further proceedings of the Bill until 12 o'clock to-day, with a view of passing the final stage of the Bill.

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety was very much concerned with his desire to keep faith with the Scotch Members to-morrowor—or, rather, at an advanced portion of to-day. But how could that be done if the right hon. Gentleman exhausted them? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that it was the duty of the Scotch Members as well as his own duty to consider the clauses of the Bill now before the House. The Scotch Members had their Imperial duties and their local ones, and if they were to go on in the performance of their Imperial duties in connection with this Bill they would be totally unfit to-morrow to go on with the consideration of the Police Burghs Bill. If they were out the Scotch Members to-night, they might be keeping the spirit of the promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope. They should let the Scotch Members away now, so that they might come back in a reasonable condition of refreshment and strength for the discharge of their over-powering and impossible duties of to-morrow.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, that with regard to the clause moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), the question had been discussed very often in many different shapes, and it appeared to be the desire of the House to recognize that the Commissioners should have full control over the inquiry. No doubt, when the evidence was brought before them they would see to what point it was directed, and they would take care that no hardship should be imposed upon anyone in anything upon which they were called upon to pronounce judgment. As to two of the Judges, he had no knowledge whatever of their political opinions; but he had had long experience of the legal and impartial characteristics of all three, and he had no doubt that they would give the case the fairest hearing in all its branches and details.

Original Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he begged to move the following new Clause:— A warrant or order for the arrest, detention, or imprisonment of a person for contempt of the Commissioners shall, notwithstanding the special Commission is dissolved or otherwise determined, be and remain as valid and effectual in all respects as if the special Commission were not so dissolved or otherwise determined, and upon such dissolution or determination all the powers, rights, and privileges of the Commissioners with respect to such warrant or order, and to a person arrested, detained, or imprisoned, or to be arrested, detained, or imprisoned by virtue thereof, shall devolve upon and be exercised by the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice or a judge thereof; and such contempt, and a proceeding with respect thereto, shall not be in anywise affected by such dissolution or determination of the special Commission. He understood the Government would accept this Amendment.

Clause (Committal of a person shall not be affected by dissolution of Commission,)—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. MATTHEWS

said, the Government had no objection to the clause on the understanding that the hon. Member for Cork dropped the Amendment on line 5, to which the Government had indicated it was their intention to assent.

MR. PARNELL

Yes; I have consented to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added.

MR. SEXTON

said, he now wished to move the addition of the following Clause:— Where a witness has been committed to prison for any contempt, the warrant of commitment shall set forth the grounds of such commitment, and it shall be lawful for any Court or Judge to inquire, upon an application for habeas corpus, into all the facts and grounds of such commitment, and where the discharge of a prisoner is ordered, to award him against such parties, as shall seem just, the reasonable coats of such application. The object of the clause was to apply the general law with regard to committal for contempt to cases under the Commission appointed by this Bill. He did not think that the Government would question that it was desirable to do that.

Clause (Provision where witness is committed for contempt,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said, it would be introducing an entirely new practice, which did not apply to any other legal inquiry.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that if the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool would move his Amendment on Clause 2, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) would move the adjournment of the debate.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 22, after the word "have," to insert the words "in addition to the special powers hereinafter provided."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

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

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.

Further Proceedings adjourned till To-morrow.