HC Deb 10 March 1908 vol 185 cc1394-433
MR. N. J. MURPHY (Kilkenny, S.)

in rising to call attention to the Law of Contempt of Court in Ireland, and the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Lawrence Ginnell, a Member of this House; and to move, "That the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with Contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and, especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation," said that he had got out of a sick bed to come to the House. He did not feel that his strength was equal to making a speech in support of his Motion, and therefore he could not do more than move it formally.

MR. P. A. McHUGH (Sligo, N.),

in seconding, said the Motion was of a two-fold nature. It particularly referred to an absent colleague and to recent exercises of the jurisdiction of contempt of Court in Ireland, and it was otherwise of a general nature, and in regard to the general portion of it their statement was that the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with contempt of Court was practically arbitrary and unlimited. It was in the interests of the ordinary citizen and of the Judges themselves that there should be a change in the law. They held that the law should be respected and that Judges should not be humiliated, but Judges had been humiliated by executive Governments, and might continue to be humiliated as long as the law remained as at present. He might refer to one case in which a Judge had sentenced a man named Cradock to twelve months imprisonment for contempt of Court in England in 1875. The conviction was discussed in that House, and the Executive Government released the man a few days after his conviction. In that case the Judge was humiliated, and it was not expedient in a properly governed community that such incidents should arise. They had no intention whatever of casting any reflection upon any Judge in Ireland, but it was only reasonable in bringing forward a Motion of this kind that they should consider it especially from the point of view of the conditions prevailing in Ireland. He admitted that the law was the same in Ireland as in England, but the practice and administration in Ireland were different. There appeared to be a general agreement amongst all parties that the law ought to be amended. A similar Resolution to this was agreed to by all parties on 4th April, 1906, but, on that occasion, the Attorney-General for Ireland said the Government had no time for such a purpose during that session. He hoped the Government would now tell them they intended to introduce legislation. He believed all parties in the House were practically agreed that contempt should be defined, that there should be a clear line of distinction drawn between civil and criminal contempt, that the punishment which might be inflicted by way of fine or imprisonment should be limited, that there should be an appeal in all cases, and that the Royal prerogative should apply. If he was right the Attorney-General had no excuse for postponing dealing with the matter. They all agreed that there should be inherent in Courts of Justice the power to protect themselves from insult, and that Judges-very properly exercised the right of committing for contempt of Court in the case, for instance, of absconding; debtors and of unsatisfactory answering; in Bankruptcy Courts. But when they as>ked what was contempt of Court no one could answer the question. They might as well ask what was truth, or what, was Socialism. There was no definition. Every Judge on the Bench might have a. a special code and definition of his own. If they laughed or sneezed in Court it might be contempt of Court. All depended upon the Judge who presided. Irish, Members had taken a very deep interest in the matter for some years past, and at their instance Returns had been made from year to year of persons sentenced to unlimited terms of imprisonment for contempt of Court in Ireland. In 1895 one of his constituents, named Daniel O'Donnell was committed for contempt for trespassing on a farm from which he had been evicted, and which was situated on an estate managed by the Land Judge. It was a doctrine universally accepted by English Judges that the jurisdiction for contempt of Court should be used only when there was no other remedy. In the case of his constituent there was no necessity for applying this jurisdiction. The ordinary law should have been appealed to. He found also his own name in one of these lists. There was no definition of the crime of which he was held to be guilty, and there was no record to say whether the contempt was civil or criminal, and he contended that the Judge in sentencing him should have clearly stated whether his contempt was of a civil or criminal nature. The question was only decided when the matter came up in that House, and it was held without evidence and without any authority or information that he was guilty of criminal contempt. He did not propose to review that decision, because it was a matter of the utmost indifference to him what decision of that kind was given in the House of Commons. He was satisfied with, his position before his constituents and his countrymen at large. Under the law as it stood at present a Judge had power to commit to prison for life, though he did not know that there was any record of its being exercised. A Judge could also impose any fine that he thought fit. He might impose a fine which would render the offender bankrupt and leave him penniless and homeless, or he might impose a condition for his release which the person imprisoned would not be willing to accept even on pain of long years of imprisonment. These were powers which, in his judgment, should not be left in the hands of any man no matter how distinguished or upright he might be. It could not be claimed for Judges that they were infallible or that they were angels. On 4th April, 1906, those who poke from the benches above the Gangway, representing Irish constituencies, all stated that the law was the same in Ireland as in England. And they appeared to him to think that the whole case was answered by making that statement. He asked the question: "Have you a Judge's Court in England similar to the Land Judge's Court in Ireland?" They had nothing of the kind, and his reply was that very probably this Motion would never have been made if they had not had such a court in Ireland entirely different from anything to be found in England. He would say that he had been a member of this House with Mr. Justice Ross, and he was not going to take advantage of his position there to say one word which would reflect upon that Judge in his judicial capacity. He maintained that Judge Ross had been badly treated by successive Governments in Ireland. In this House he was regarded as the champion and spokesman of the landlord as against the tenant class. And what did the late Government do? It set him over a Court whose function it was to decide between the conflicting interests of those two classes. He held that that was very unfair to Judge Ross, because it placed him in a very difficult and invidious position. That fact had been recognised by all parties in the House. On 13th April, 1904, the following Resolution was adopted by this House— That the time has arrived for taking immediate steps to wind up the business of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in the interest of all concerned. He held that that included the Judge himself. On that occasion the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Dover, supported the Resolution; but he took no steps to give effect to it, and matters remained to-day practically the same as they were when that Motion was brought before the House. Sometimes they were charged with saying harsh things about Judges in Ireland, but the hardest thing ever said about Mr. Justice Ross was said by the present Attorney-General for Ireland, who on 4th April, 1906, said— The Judge of the Land Judge's Court was transformed into a kind of rent-agent. Nothing worse could be said of a Judge in Ireland, and he would not attempt to improve on it. In looking over the Returns of persons sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court in Ireland, he found a very large proportion of them sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for some reason or other arising out of disputes in Judge Ross's Court. He found the following. Michael Daly, Aranmore, County Donegal, kept in prison for 158 days; Patrick Farelly, Enaghay County Longford, 191 days; Francis D'Arcy, Cualeyhen, County Cavan, 142 days; Batt. O. Doherty, Shanara, County Kerry, 163 days; Michael Roche, Costle Ireland, County Kerry, 236 days; Myles Synott, Courtown Harbour, Wexford, one year, fifty-nine days; Thomas Eaton, Towerstown, County Kilkenny, 298 days; Thomas Walsh, Scariff, County Clare, 291 days. A man named Patrick Kavanagh, of Furzditch, County Wicklow, was kept in prison for contempt one year and 237 days by the Vice-Chancellor. Kavanagh was afterwards transferred from the prison to Richmond Lunatic Asylum. Rightly or wrongly there was a feeling in the minds of a very large section of the people of Ireland that the power of committal for contempt of Court was used in the Land Judge's Court in the interests of the owner as against the interests of the occupier. He contended that that was a most regrettable fact. He had stated that there appeared to be general agreement in regard to the principle laid down by English Judges that the power of committal for contempt of court should be availed of only where there was no alternative. He would refer to the case of Daniel O'Donnell, who was committed to prison for a trespass he was said to have committed, and for which, had it been committed in this country, he would have been tried under the ordinary law, that was to say if they admitted that the principles laid down by Justices Coleridge, Matthew, and Jessell were correct. He maintained that Daniel O'Donnell was wrongfully committed to prison, because there was an alternative means of punishing him for the offence he had committed. The offence was committed on an estate in the Land Judge's Court, but had O'Donnell's trespass been on an estate in the hands of its owner, he would have been tried under the ordinary law. In that same year a branch of the United Irish League was formed at Drumkeeran, and at a meeting of the branch a resolution was adopted condemning land-grabbing. Land-grabbing had been made the subject of discussion throughout Ireland, and would continue to be so until the practice was abolished. There was no power in the hands of any Government which could prevent the people of Ireland from expressing their opinion in regard to that matter. It was quite possible that the Drumkeeran branch in passing that resolution and making special reference to a particular land-grabber, broke the law. He did not question that, but if a man broke the law, whether in England or Ireland, he should be tried according to the law. But what was done in the Drumkeeran case? The grabbed land was part of an estate in the Land Judge's Court. The receiver a Mr. Hewson, made an affidavit, and he got the land-grabber, whose name was Hetherington, to make another affidavit, and on the charges made in these affidavits four of his constituents were sentenced to indefinite terms of imprisonment on a charge of contempt of Court. He took particular interest in the case, and went down to Drumkeeran, and made inquiry as to the statements contained in the affidavits submitted by Hewson and Hetherington; and he found that in the main these statements were absolutely false and unfounded. He was present at the Court when the men were tried. The accusers did not put in an appearance, and answering affidavits were put in by the four men, but the Judge absolutely refused to listen to them, and used very violent language in committing them for contempt of Court. Three of the men evaded capture for some time, but one of them, Mr. Joseph Gallagher, secretary of the branch, who was in delicate health was arrested at once, and lodged in Sligo Gaol. He visited Gallagher, and found him in a cold dark cell, where he could not read except far about two hours a day. He was kept in solitary confinement for twenty-two out of the twenty-four hours. There was no way he could see of getting Gallagher out of prison. The Judge insisted as a condition of release that Gallagher had to swear what he believed to be false, viz., that he was sorry he had been a party to passing a resolution condemning land-grabbing. That, in his judgment, was intolerable, because it had been laid down by more than one Judge that no such conditions should be imposed in such cases, and that the terms of imprisonment should be defined and limited. This poor man Gallagher, who had to be carried out of his cell every day by the warders to get the air, was dying by inches, and his friends came to him and said: "Why don't you give in?" Of course, in the end the poor fellow had to give in. He maintained that the law of contempt of Court was used as an instrument for the repression of agrarian agitation, and there was nothing worse than this abuse of the power of committing to prison for contempt of Court. Every device had been used to stop agrarian agitation in Ireland. Coercion. Acts had been passed, without avail, and, of course, no justice could be had from two paid magistrates who came down to the Courts with the sentences to be passed on the accused in their pockets. Another means of repression was packed juries; but none of these things were half so bad as this power of committing for contempt of Court when a man has no right to be confronted with his accusers and to cross-examine them. But this was not the worst of it. This jurisdiction might be invoked by outsiders as it had been in the Drumkeeran case, where, to his personal! knowledge, the statements made against his constituents were unfounded. He met Hewson at a public meeting, and explained the whole situation to him, and called him names which he would not repeat in the House. Hewson however, had taken no action against him, and his constituents were tried and imprisoned on false and perjured testimony. He said that to use the power of committal in such a case was to turn it into an instrument of torture and of terror, and was calculated to bring the Court into odium. No man was safe in the country. If he went down to his own constituency to address a meeting, he would have to make inquiries as to whether an estate was in the Courts or not, and if it was in the Courts he could say nothing about it. He tried to bring public opinion to bear upon the treatment of his constituents in this matter, and he called a public meeting, but it was suppressed by proclamation. In England they did not hear many complaints about the abuse of this power, because it was not abused here as it was in Ireland. Even if it was abused in this country there was always the safeguard of public opinion. This country was governed in accordance with public opinion, but that was not the case in Ireland, and it would be more true to say that Ireland was usually governed in defiance of Irish public opinion. In England, moreover, no carrion crow winged his way to the judicial bench, and a different system prevailed altogether. He would refer to a case in which he was concerned, but he would not have done so had not his colleagues asked him to bring the facts before the House. He was sitting in the smoking-room downstairs on 22nd February, 1902, when a colleague drew his attention to a report which appeared in the London Times of that date, and which went to show that on the previous day a matter cropped up in the Land Judge's Court about a Conference held in Highwood, County Sligo, and reported in the Sligo Champion of 11th January, 1902. The resolution passed was one condemning the eleven months system of letting land, and special reference was made to a grazing farm on an estate called the Weir Estate, which was then in the Land Judge's Court. He would read an extract from the report that appeared in the London Times on 22nd February, 1902. The Judge said— There was no doubt that the tenants had been interfered with. If it could be proved that any two men had proposed and seconded the resolution that had been cited, he would deal with them for contempt of Court. The receiver must take steps if he could to prove the origin of the resolution. The persons who moved and supported these resolutions would be punished if they were brought before him. The newspapers, in publishing the resolutions, were the principal agencies in the conspiracy. If the editors were brought before him he would teach them that to publish such a resolution was a gross contempt of Court, and they would be punished severely. He had never denied responsibility for what appeared in the paper on 11th January, which contained a report of the Conference, including the resolution condemning the eleven months system, references being made to a particular farm. He admitted that in all probability he committed an offence before the law, but if he had committed such an offence let him be tried by the law. He might have been charged with intimidation or conspiracy, and he would have stood his trial and paid the penalty, but he did not get a trial, and what he complained of then, and what he complained of now, was that his liberty was taken away without a fair trial. He was never confronted with his accusers, and they were never put in the witness-box for cross-examination. It was said that all men were equal before the law, and he supposed that that was universally admitted. He said that all estates were equal before the law. They were equal before the law in England, but not equal before the law in Ireland, and that was the kernel of their complaint against these proceedings. Were they to be told that what was intimidation on one side of -the ditch was contempt of Court on the other? He refused to subscribe to so preposterous a doctrine. Were they to be told that cattle-driving was an offence against the Common Law on one side of the ditch, and would be tried under the Common Law, but was contempt of Court on the other side? That was the case of their colleague. If he had done certain acts of which he was accused on an estate which was not in Court, he would be tried according to the ordinary law, button an estate which was before the Court it was contempt of Court. He said that if that; was the law, then surely the law was an ass. The hint thrown out by Mr. Justice Ross that proceedings should be taken against him was acted upon very promptly by the receiver of the estate. He was served with a notice to appear before Judge Ross, and the case was tried on 19th April, 1902, in Dublin. On that occasion he was represented by an eminent counsel, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, now the Recorder of Dublin, and Mr. Kehoe, who was made a County Court Judge. An affidavit having been read by the prosecuting counsel, his answering affidavit was read. In it he said— I have read the affidavits made in this case. It is a fact that reports of such meetings of the United Irish League appeared in my paper. It is a fact that I am proprietor of the Sligo Champion, and as such I acknowledge my responsibility for the publication of the reports. I say that with regard to the publication of the said reports I am not guilty of contempt of this honourable Court, as I did not know of the existence of this estate until I saw reference to it and to myself and to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross in the London Times some time last month. I did not know until then that the estate of Weir was in the Courts, or that there was any dispute about the management of the said estate. I never read any of the said reports before or after publication, until after I was served with a summons. On my attention being drawn to The Times report, I wrote to my manager directing him to insert no more reports without first submitting them to me, and my instructions in this respect have been carried out. And counsel for the prosecution proceeded— There is the whole of the affidavit. He is responsible for everything that appears in his paper, and it is his duty to know whether, in these publications, he is interfering with the management of an estate in this Court. In no place in that affidavit does he express regret, and one would have expected that a gentleman, such as Mr. McHugh, if he did not intend to interfere with the management of an estate in this Court, would have made in his affidavit an expression of regret for what he had done. Not one word of regret is here, and one would have thought that he would have given an undertaking that such would not occur again. There is no undertaking given that he would not repeat the conduct he has been guilty of. All he says is that he directed his manager not to insert any such reports without first submitting them to him. There is no guarantee given that the same thing would not occur again. Certainly not. Why should he give a guarantee? He held then and he held now that the management of all estates whether in Court or not was a legitimate subject, of public discussion. He gave no undertaking, and, when he was asked to give one he was required to give up the right, if there was to be a free Press, to print the reports of meetings. He did not comment upon the matter and knew nothing about it, but he was charged with having inserted a report of a conference of a National League Branch at which the resolution to which he had referred was passed. He did not see how he could be held guilty of contempt, and Mr. O'Shaughnessy, who appeared for him, said— Is it not perfectly plain that he neither committed a contempt nor intended to commit a contempt? I quite admit that your Lordship is entitled and bound to exercise your jurisdiction where it is necessary; but I say this is a case where it is not necessary. Mr. Kehoe, also on his behalf, said— These are merely reports of meetings which were not proclaimed. His Lordship would believe Mr. McHugh when he stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge that the estate was in Court; and no case could be found on the books of contempt where knowledge was not brought home in some form. It was the duty of some officer of his Lordship's Court to inform Mr. McHugh that he was committing a contempt, as there was no duty devolving on Mr. McHugh to make inquiry about it. He said that in all the authorities he had read it was laid down that there could be no contempt without intent and surely there could be no intent where there was no knowledge. Counsel having been heard on his behalf, judgment was delivered by the Land Judge who said— Accordingly, I adjudge and declare Patrick Aloysius McHugh, Member of Parliament, guilty of contempt of Court. I order him to be attached until further order. I order him to pay all the costs of this motion, and a fine of £50 to the Crown. To prevent any further attempt to deal with this estate in this matter, I order an injunction to issue to restrain Mr. McHugh, his agents, assistants, employees, or servants from interfering with the Receiver, by publishing matters calculated to prevent the letting of grazing in this estate; and I direct service of this notice to be substituted by sending it to the office, directed to Mr. McHugh. I have only one further thing to remark. I can see reference to other estates in this paper; and I now warn all Receivers that when they notice matters of this kind calculated to interfere with the performance of their duty and with the rights of the people, if they do not promptly bring such before this Court, I will have their names removed from the list of Receivers. M. Leech (prosecuting counsel) asked for the costs of the Receiver and the answer of Judge Ross was— I am not satisfied that the Receiver should not have sent notice to the paper long before he brought the matter before this Court, if he had done so I would have dealt with the matter in a very different way. Therefore it appeared that the Judge held that his crime was somewhat mitigated by the fact that he had no notice from the Receiver. If he had a notice he wondered what the sentence would have been. He thought the sentence was hard enough because as his release would be subject to a condition he could not possibly accept it was tantamount ^o a sentence of imprisonment for life. For reasons with which he need not trouble the House that order of Judge Ross remained in abeyance till June, 1903. In the meantime peace had fallen upon the land. Before going into prison he thought he would give the Judge an opportunity of reviewing his sentence, and accordingly he had e Motion made asking him to rescind the Order. He refused to listen to his counsel and said— We are very patient in this Court. But he (the hon. Member) must go in first, and then make his application. He was therefore to go into gaol where the learned Judge would have the thumbscrew on him and where he hoped, by twisting it to a certain extent, to extract from him an acknowledgment of regret and a promise not offend again. That in his judgment, would have humiliated him, and he was determined he would not be humiliated by Judge Ross. The Judge added: He (the hon. Member) was the proprietor of the paper, and he must express regret for the publication, otherwise, I cannot hear him. There is no expression of regret in the affidavit at all. He must clearly understand that the contempt must be purged and got rid of. I must have an expression of regret for the publication in the paper before I consider it at all. Let there be no mistake about that. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that Mr. Justice Ross desired to humiliate him as his constituents had been humiliated, and, after that judgment, he went down to Sligo and got arrested immediately. He made no application for release, and yet within fifteen days he was released. The thumbscrew was ready, and he was behind the bars. Judge Ross, he supposed, expected he would approach him and ask to be let free, and that he would say that, if he promised not to do it again, he would let him out. Why, however, should he apologise for a con- tempt of which he was innocent? He made up his mind he would do nothing of the kind, and neither he nor any of his friends approached the Executive Government. Why was he released? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House. Did the Executive Government humiliate Judge Ross? He had prepared humble pie for him, but it was not he who ate it. It was Judge Ross. He did not know up to this moment why he was released. He expressed no regret; and he did not ask to be released. Probably, when the case of the hon. Member for West Meath came up the right hon. Gentleman would say they had no power to release him except by order of the Judge. By what power was he (the hon. Member speaking) released? The power which was considered enough to force Mr. Justice Ross to release him still remained and should be exercised by the Chief Secretary, and, on behalf of his Party, and in the name of decency and of fair play, he demanded the immediate and unconditional release of his imprisoned colleague. It was no use to say they could not release him. There was the case of Craddock and his own case. Let them do in the case of his imprisoned colleague what was done in his own. The Chief Secretary's administration up to the present had been clean. Let him not shelter himself behind this rusty tool of contempt of Court, which ought to be left in the lumber room of dead tyrannies with the thumbscrew and the rack.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the jurisdiction of judges in dealing with contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation."—(Mr. Nicholas Murphy.)


said that it was certainly not the first time this subject of contempt of Court had been before Parliament; and he found that as far back as 1882, twenty-six years ago, the late Mr. Gladstone stated in this House that the matter was a pressing one and that he proposed to introduce almost immediately legislation on the subject. In 1883 a Bill was actually introduced in the House of Lords by the late Lord Selborne, and it provided in a very substantial way for the limitation of the power of Judges as regarded committals for contempt. It limited the penalty of imprisonment to a period of two months and the fine which might be imposed to £500. And what was more important, it gave the right of appeal in every case of committal by a single Judge. That Bill failed to became law. He believed it passed through all its stages in the House of Lords, but in this House, owing to pressure of business, it was dropped. Although that was so very long ago, nothing had been done by way of legislation since. They were now exactly in the same position as they were then. Again, he found in 1892 a Bill was introduced—it was backed by his right hon. friend the present Chief Secretary— with the object of giving the right of appeal not only to the Court of Appeal but also to the House of Lords in the case of committal for contempt. It shared the fate of so many other Bills introduced by private Members, and failed to become law. In 1906 the subject was brought forward, and a Resolution, almost identical in terms with the Resolution now before the House, was unanimously accepted. He therefore apprehended that there would be no difficulty to-night in accepting the resolution, but he thought it was unnecessary for him to mention how unfavourable would be the prospect of passing any measure on the subject this session with the legislative programme before the House.


It could be made a one-clause Bill.


said the hon. Member suggested that it could be done in a one-clause Bill, but could a one-clause Bill be passed in one minute? It was not a question of the number of the clauses, but of the time to be given to a matter of this kind. He was not in a position to control the time of the House, and he could not undertake on behalf of the Government at the present moment to introduce legislation on this subject. There was legislation in contemplation, not only for England and Scotland, but also for Ireland, which they all knew there was a great deal of difficulty in passing in the present session owing to the limited amount of time at their disposal, and he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite could really press them too much to take up this matter in the present session in addition to other matters they had to deal with.


said that a Bill was passed in all its stages in 1883 by Lord Selborne and the Law Lords, in the House of Lords, and it was only stopped because there was not time in the Commons. They had the Lords in their favour and an overwhelming majority in this House in their favour. Surely it could be done without the smallest difficulty and without the loss of four hours of time!

MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.)

May I just say there was not time in this House to pass a little Bill for Belfast the other night?


thought the last interruption showed the hopelessness of passing the Bill as a non-contentious measure in a few minutes. If there was a chance of passing it, he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should present his Bill. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Sligo, in the course of his moderate speech, disclaim any intention of making any attack upon any Judge in Ireland. There was no necessity for him to disclaim any attack or any attempt to attack the Judges in Ireland; but he agreed that the power of a single Judge arbitrarily to commit for contempt was a power which ought not to be conferred. In a matter such as contempt, which affected the Judge personally, he should not be allowed to be the judge in his own cause. In a great many cases where questions of contempt arose, the question was a personal one between the Judge and the person brought before him. He thought everybody would agree that in such matters it was desirable that there should be the right of appeal from the order of the Judge. The whole House, he thought, would agree that the power of committing for contempt ought to be strictly confined to what was really contempt, and that it ought not to be used as an instrument for the repression of land agitation. He did not say it had been so used or that Mr. Justice Ross, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, had had in his mind any idea of a political nature. He had protected the land within his jurisdiction and from time to time imposed sentences upon persons who, he thought, interfered with the management of the property in such a way as to prevent him doing his duty towards the owners. But the House would, he thought, agree with him that the power of committal for contempt was not intended to be used as an instrument for the repression of land agitation or for any political purpose whatever. With regard to definition and limitation of the jurisdiction, it was a very difficult matter to deal with, and he did not know how they could attempt in any Bill to limit or define what was contempt of Court. He was not aware that it had ever been attempted, and if any attempt had been made he would be very glad to see how it had been expressed. There must be always, if the law was to be administered, this power of committal for contempt, otherwise it would be impossible that the administration of estates in Chancery or the conduct of judicial business could be carried on. But what they were entitled to insist on was that the power and the duty of committal for contempt should be strictly confined to cases where it was necessary and where it was merely for the purpose of allowing the business of the Courts to be fairly and justly conducted so as to do no injustice to any individual. He agreed that in Ireland, although the law was the same as in England, the circumstances were very different and greater strictness was required. There was no Court in England in the same position as the Land Judge's Court in Ireland. There was no Court which had the management of a very large portion of the area of the country and where the Judge was really in the double position of being both Judge and landlord, because substantially in the case of every estate in Ireland under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge and for sale in his Court, the Judge exercised the rights of a landlord, and the law of landlord and tenant as between the Judge and persons who held under the Court was administered by means of this law of contempt. A tenant who refused to give, up possession at the end of the term for which he had contracted to hold the land, if he held under an ordinary landlord, was proceeded against in the ordinary way. If he held under the Land Judge and refused to give up when his tenancy expired he was guilty of contempt of Court and might be treated as so guilty. During the last forty or fifty years the law of contempt of Court had been put into force again and again by the Land Judges, and not only was it used as between the owner, represented by the Land Court, and the tenants in occupation, but it was also used with reference to outsiders who had no dealing with the Court at all. In their case the matter was more grave, because their contempt was treated as criminal and not merely civil contempt. The Resolution in so far as it suggested that an amendment of the law was required to limit the term of imprisonment and the amount of the fines that might be imposed and to confer the right of appeal upon persons who were sentenced by a single Judge, was a moderate Resolution, and might be reasonably accepted by the House, and he would ask the House to accept it. The hon. Member had dealt with a particular case. He did not think this was the time to deal with any individual case. If there was any question of exercising the prerogative of pardon it was open to hon. Members to take measures to bring the matter before the Executive Government. So far as he was aware, in no instance in the last fifty years had the prerogative of the Court ever been exercised in reference to committal for contempt and it was a doubtful point whether such jurisdiction existed. The hon. Member for Lietrim had been committed and released, but he was released by the Judge who committed him. Of course it was open to Mr. Justice Ross to deal with a case as he thought right. In regard to the Resolution the Government accepted it and were willing that it should be passed, but the House would not expect that he should make any promise or pledge on the part of the Government in regard to legislation during the present session.

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

said he wished to refer to what the Attorney-General had stated with regard to having the Resolution detached altogether from the case of the gentleman whose name was mentioned in the preamble. He could not take that view. He conceived that there was a matter affecting the House which ought to be very carefully inquired into, and was a proper topic for debate at the present moment. When Mr. De Cobain, who was a very eminent member of the Conservative Party in Ireland, and for whose misfortune he, for one, felt extremely sorry, had been guilty of some offence that he would not now mention, the House proposed on the Motion of the present Leader of the Opposition or of the late Mr. Smith, without any notice to Mr. de Cobain, to try to expel him. He (Mr. Healy), had objected, and pointed out that he had neither been convicted nor had he any notice or advertisement of the censure of the House being about to be pissed upon him. So precise and scrupulous was the House in regard to a Conservative Member, although he was quite sure the Leader of the Opposition would have been equally scrupulous if his attention had been called to it in regard to a political opponent, that the House sent a special messenger across to some Continental port and advised Mr. de Cobain of the proposed censure of the House and invited him to go and attend. It was only after he had been advised of the censure that the House proceeded to expel him from its membership. What was the case with regard to the hon. Member for North Westmeath? It might or might not be right to exercise the power of committal for contempt of Court, but the House should be most scrupulously careful in considering the circumstances in which any of its Members might suffer arrest and imprisonment. He was one of the Committee that inquired into a similar case in 1883, and he could not think that their procedure or their respect for the dignity of the position of a Member of Parliament had improved. It was upon the recommendation of that Committee that Mr. Gladstone proposed to introduce into the House of Lords a Bill to limit the duration of imprisonment to two months. Nor did the Prime Minister of that day think it derogatory to his great office to preside-over that Committee which was representative of all sections of the House. There they were now, however, after a quarter of a century, without having made an inch of progress, and the House had, in fact, refused to appoint a Committee on privilege. He was as strongly opposed to cattle-driving and all its incidents as any Conservative Member or Ministerialist, and therefore, he was not speaking out of any sympathy with the movement in connection with which the hon. Member for North Westmeath was committed to prison, but he did say that the hon. Member had the rights, not only of a citizen, but of a Member of that House, and they should be jealous to see that no wrong had been committed. He conceived that it was a gross hardship on the hon. Member for North Westmeath, who no doubt thought he was bearing a proper and creditable part in the movement. How was the hon. Member or anybody else to find out that a particular area of grazing land was, or was not, under the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross's Court? He remembered reading in connection with the American War how some of the-northern soldiers described the one case in which the United States inflicted the punishment of death after the Civil War, and the great grievance was that there was an imaginary line drawn which they refused to mark, chalk, or delimit in any way when the poor hungry prisoners used to come out picking up snails and worms off the ground. But the moment any of them crossed that line bang went the rifle of a soldier, and the northern soldier was a corpse. Where was that line drawn in Ireland I He might make a speech in favour of cattle-driving in one field, and he would be absolutely free from the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross; but if he crossed the ditch into the next field and made the same speech he might get six months, imprisonment. Whichever side of the ditch he spoke on, his speech and the sentiments would be the same, and probably the effect upon the neighbourhood would be the same. The hon. Member for North Westmeath had no notice that he was speaking on ground under the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Ross, and, therefore, he did not commit contempt of Court in making a speech which was not intended to be a contempt of Court. Moreover, he had stated, and his word had not been controverted, that he never received any summons from Mr. Justice Ross, or from his Court. He thought it would be within the province of that House to inquire as to what were the facts upon which one of its Members had been sentenced to six months imprisonment. A Member of that House had been laid by the heels, and yet until now not a single voice had been raised to question the prudence, legality, or even the technical justice of his imprisonment. If the hon. Member for North Westmeath had been a Macedonian, or a Chinaman, or even a Congolese, the matter would have been different. If he were Dinuzulu, his imprisonment might be made a matter of considerable sympathy; but as he was only an Irish Member engaged in making speeches with which few had sympathy his liberty seemed to be a matter not merely of no interest, but of no importance. He strongly hoped that on the occasion of some strike or labour movement in England some distinguished member of the Labour Party would be committed for contempt of Court. But English Judges were so wise; they never came into real conflict with that House or even with its humblest Member. Going back for forty or fifty years, in spite of the very great friction which existed in the labour movement in regard to such matters as the law of conspiracy, he could not understand why no English Member had ever succeeded in getting committed for contempt of Court. Whether the English Judges were in the habit of passing over their strong speeches or not he did not know, but undoubtedly they had a state of affairs under which English Members could treat Irish affairs in this extraordinary manner. He agreed with what the Attorney-General had said in regard to the advisability of making no attacks upon the Judges, although he did not believe the Judges minded these attacks. If he abstained: from challenging the judgment of the learned Judge in this case, it was not because he knew that the Judge would disregard it, but because he would like to make an appeal even there for some consideration for the position which the hon. Member for North Westmeath occupied. The Attorney-General had said that in no case had the prerogative of mercy been exercised in a case of contempt of Court. But he would remind the Attorney-General that many years ago-there was a case in county Limerick when Mr. Justice Boyd himself released Tom Moroney from prison, and made-no bones about it. The heat of the-cattle-driving movement had passed away, and the Government might now take action, or Mr. Justice Ross-himself, who was far from being a, harsh or ill-natured man, might take-some action which would enable the hon. Member for North Westmeath to be discharged from prison. The Member for Trinity College knew the circumstances under which the hon. Member was committed, and he enjoyed the extraordinary advantage of being the only man in this House who did know, because he held the brief upon which the hon. Member was committed. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he thought the very severe sentence which the hon. Member had undergone was not sufficient, and to throw out a hint that a sufficient period of incarceration had passed. If he did that, he could assure him that nothing but good would come from the discharge of the hon. Member from what must be an irksome and onerous punishment. The law on this question-was not in a state which anybody could regard with satisfaction either for England or Ireland. Whatever might be their desire to marry their deceased wife's sister, or to escape from vaccination, or to shut up public-houses, or any other of the great works upon which the Liberal Party had been engaged for the last two years, he respectfully submitted that the liberty of the subject in Ireland was a still greater right. Nevertheless, this right had remained year after year clouded, although so conservative a body as the House of Lords had condemned the existing state of the law, and what made matters worse was that in Ireland there was no right of appeal. There were a large number of matters upon which they had a right of appeal in this country which was denied to Ireland. An amendment of the law was required, and lie thought this was one of the occasions when the Government's profession that it was on the side of liberty should be put into actual practice.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)

said he quite agreed with what had fallen from the Attorney-General as to the importance of limiting and defining the jurisdiction of the Courts in this matter. He was quite sure the Judges themselves would gladly accept from Parliament some relief so that there should be a statutory limitation as to the sentence and imprisonment and as to the Amount of the fines. It would also be in the interests of personal liberty if a right of appeal was conferred from the decision of a single Judge in these matters. The great difficulty was that in Ireland there was no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in criminal matters, and Members on that side of the House above the gangway who represented Irish constituencies, had been anxious to have the law in that respect altered so as to confer such rights of appeal in all criminal matters, but hon. Members below the gangway had never received that suggestion with any friendliness or with any promise of co-operation. When it had been proposed to take advantage of an English Bill before the House to insert a clause giving this right of appeal to Ireland, they had always been told that they might count on the opposition of the bulk of the hon. Members from Ireland below the gangway.


said he remembered the instance to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. It was the Prisoners Evidence Bill, and the Irish Members said they would oppose it because they felt that prosecutions would not be conducted in the same manner in Ireland as in England, and that innocent men might be convicted.


said the hon. Member was referring to a wholly different matter. There being in his view a strong case for legislation which would limit and define the jurisdiction of a single Judge in this matter, he would have been quite prepared to let the Motion pass without any discussion, had it not been for the suggestion that the acceptance of the Motion involved a decision by the House that the use of this power of contempt of Court was condemned in all cases in which it of necessity became an element in the repression of agrarian agitation. He could not find anything of that kind in the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it necessarily involved that, and if it did he would be inclined to oppose the Motion and divide the House on it.


I do not think I said that, I did not intend to say it. All I said was that I agreed with the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo, and I myself condemned the use of this process for the purpose of repressing agrarian agitation.


said the Attorney-General had left Members on that side under the distinct impression that he evolved that out of the Motion. With regard to the exercise of this jurisdiction in the Court of the Land Judge, he was glad to hear the hon. Member for Sligo, who might be pardoned for indulging in strong language by reason of his reminiscences, say that he had not the slightest intention of making any attack on Mr. Justice Ross. He afterwards, when he got warm, forgot that observation and rather suggested that in some particular case the learned Judge had practically denied justice to the accused person because he would not allow the witnesses against him to be cross-examined and would not listen to the affidavits filed on his behalf. He was certain that the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension, because that was the ordinary right of every person against whom such an application was made. He had never known Mr. Justice Ross in any single case depart from the recognised practice and law. It had been admitted with candour by the hon. Member for Sligo that for all intents and purposes the law in Ireland was precisely the same on this point as in England. If any one attempted to interfere with the Court of Chancery in this country the Court at once came down on that person, exercising its inherent jurisdiction of contempt of Court to protect the property under its own control. That was exactly what Mr. Justice Ross claimed to have done; he had invoked the protection of that jurisdiction with which Parliament entrusted his Court. The hon. Member's complaint was that because they had in Ireland a particular Court which Parliament itself had set up and which of necessity had to deal with Irish land, they ought to take away from that Court, the Court which above all required it, the power inherent in every other Court in England and Ireland that had to deal with property. The Court of Chancery in England had inherent jurisdiction to protect the property which it controlled. That was exactly what Mr. Justice Ross claimed to do, nothing more and nothing less, and he had never strained his jurisdiction. Some suggestion was made by the hon. Member for North Louth with reference to some alleged defect in the notice that was given in the case of the hon. Member for North Westmeath. He was not going to discuss the merits of that case, but he would remind the House that the affirmative evidence satisfied the Judge that notice of this process had been brought to the knowledge of the hon. Member for North Westmeath. It was only a prima facie case, but it was not attempted to be displaced by the hon. Member for North Westmeath. He did not appear before the Judge, nor put in any affidavit to contradict proof of service which had been put in. Therefore, the Judge was bound to act on the proof of service which was not challenged. With regard to the position of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, hon. Members below the gangway knew that he took no pleasure at all in coming into direct conflict with any of them, nor did he take the slightest pleasure in seeing them come into conflict with the law. But he must say this. It was the settled practice in England and Ireland in any case of contempt of Court that it was impossible for the Court to listen to the person undergoing sentence until he had what was technically called purged his contempt. So long as he remained in contempt he could not get his sentence reduced or remitted. One other point. It was said, and not unnaturally said, by one Member, that a man in speaking in one field might come under this particular jurisdiction, whereas by going into the next field he was free from that jurisdiction. So long as the Member for North Westmeath confined himself to properties that were not under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge, though he might make himself amenable to the general law of the land, that law overlooked him for nine months and allowed him to go on with impunity committing these offences. There was no peculiarity whatever about the administration of the law in Ireland. It was the same as in England. If anyone in England interfered with property that was being administered by the Court of Chancery they were liable to be had up for contempt of Court. But if they went to the next farm they were made amenable to the ordinary law. The only difference between Ireland and England was that Parliament had set up a tribunal in Ireland to take charge of these estates. Another reason why those cases were more numerous in Ireland than in England was—and he did not think hon. Members below the Gangway would take offence at the statement—that there was not in Ireland, speaking universally, that great respect for law and order which was to be found in many parts of this country, more particularly if the property attacked was the subject of political agitation. And thus those parties suffered more in Ireland than in this country. But, taking this Motion simply as calling the attention of the House to the necessity for putting some restriction upon the extent of imprisonment which might be inflicted, and the amount of the fine, and also providing for the right of appeal, he saw no objection to it, and was prepared to support it


said that there was common agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and himself in what the former had stated in the beginning and conclusion of his speech, although in the middle portion of it the right hon. and learned Member had touched upon more controversial matters. It so happened that this question of contempt of Court was one which had long engaged his attention, although he must confess that in former days his knowledge was entirely confined to England. He saw that his name was on the back of a Bill introduced in this House in 1892. His right hon. friend had referred to him, but far more distinguished people than he had shared that honour with him. There were the names of Mr. Warmington, Mr. Finlay, the late Attorney-General for England, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, now Master of the Rolls, Mr. Coleridge, now a Judge of the High Court, and Mr. Gainsford-Bruce, also a Judge of the High Court, now retired on his pension. In fact he was the only one of this celebrated galaxy who was still unrewarded! The object of the Bill of 1892 following on a Bill which actually passed the House of Lords under the guidance of that distinguished Chancellor, the late Lord Selborne, was to secure a right of appeal in cases of contempt of court. Confining himself for a moment to England, a country with which he then had better acquaintance than with Ireland, he might say that the whole notion of the theory of contempt of court was based on the fiction that the King is present in all his Courts, and that therefore any disturbance in the court or any disrespect shown to the Judge was an insult to His Majesty himself, and therefore, something which required to be dealt with summarily by the Judge in order to secure order and proper decency in the Court. Consequently, they saw the law exercised when a person reading a newspaper was directed by the usher to leave off doing so, since his attention to the news was a disrespect to the gravity of the proceedings, or if anyone laughed, or talked too loudly, or laughed at any joke other than a judicial joke, he might be reminded by the usher that that was not seemly. Everybody would agree that that kind of contempt was one which must be preserved. Based upon that, in English Courts there arose the undoubted practice that if any person disobeyed an actual order of the Court, he also was guilty of contempt. If the Court of Chancery had directed that a wall should be pulled down in order to preserve ancient lights, the man who refused to pull it down was liable to be proceeded against for contempt of Court, because he had actually disobeyed the order of the Court. Then there was the case to which his right hon. and learned friend referred as occurring so frequently in Ireland—the case of a person interfering with an estate in Chancery. From, long experience he was certain that it had always been the practice in England that Judges were most anxious never to punish anyone for contempt of Court unless he had refused to obey an order of the Court with which he had been served, to do or abstain from doing some particular act. For instance, if anyone ran away with a ward of the Court he was proceeded against for contempt. Then they came to the case with which Lord Selborne dealt in 1892. They were then dealing with English cases, not contemplating that people were sent to prison for disobedience of an actual order of the Court, although even in those cases the House of Lords conceived that there ought to be some restrictions placed upon the term of imprisonment of, or the amount of fine imposed on, such persons, and that there should be a right of appeal in every case. Therefore, in England there prevailed a very different law from that under which the hon. Member for North Westmeath was now suffering imprisonment in Ireland. He did not quarrel with the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin. University, that if an estate was under the control of the Court it might be a technical contempt of Court for a person to do anything which would prejudice that estate. But it was contrary to the English practice, and contrary to the general idea of the law, to punish a man for contempt of Court when he might be perfectly ignorant that he was doing anything in the nature of contempt of Court. He agreed with the statement that there could not be, or ought not to be, contempt without intent. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in putting the case that it seemed unreasonable to send to prison for six months a man who did not know that he was committing a contempt of Court. That was good sound common sense and a criticism which an Englishman would pass on the law, Disobedience to the law they could all understand to be punishable and contempt also by fine or imprisonment within limitations as to the amount of the time of imprisonment and the maximum of the fine. But he went beyond that and said that justice required that a person should not be punished for contempt unless he knew that he was guilty of this particular kind of contempt. Therefore, in his opinion, the present state of the law required definition and limitation. It had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for North Westmeath got six months' imprisonment from Mr. Justice Ross because he as Chief Secretary had neglected his duty. He had the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. Justice Ross, and believed he was a man who strove to do his duty as a Judge and a lawyer. Therefore the idea that it was quite possible Mr. Justice Ross thought it his duty to vindicate law and order because he had failed in the discharge of his duty as Chief Secretary never crossed his mind until it was raised by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.


said he had never hinted, even in the most remote way, anything of the kind. What he did say was this: that the hon. Member for Sligo had said that if the hon. Member for North Westmeath had done this on the other side of the fence, he would be subject to the ordinary law of the land, and he pointed out that for nine months he had done this on the other side of the fence, and had escaped the law of the land.


said that that was the sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which had made him a little bit uneasy, and made him feel that it was eminently undesirable that the law of contempt which was a very special law, which weak Judges were very fond of, but which strong Judges confident in their powers, their knowledge, and their strength, were slow to put into operation, should be used in that way. It was because he thought it would be a very lamentable thing if it were suggested that the law of contempt of Court was to be made a sort of balance to enable Judges to equalise things in the maintenance and observance of the ordinary law, and that only made it more desirable that this most arbitrary and most opposed to liberty kind of thing should be confined and denned as strictly as possible. However, they were all agreed that the terms of this Motion were of a character that the House of Commons was bound to accept. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in dragging in the supposed opposition of some Gentlemen below the gangway to an Act only just passed, giving an appeal in criminal cases. He did not know whether Gentlemen below the gangway were opposed to that measure or not, but that measure was only passed last year. It was passed in spite of a great deal of opposition on the part of English lawyers, and he believed almost the whole of the British bench were opposed to it. Everybody had agreed that this matter of contempt of Court had nothing whatever to do with the general right of appeal in criminal cases. He was a strong advocate of the Bill that passed recently, giving an appeal in criminal cases under certain conditions. He would listen with curiosity to know why Nationalist Members objected to it, but it had nothing to do with dealing with this particular excrescence, this particular and most limited subject. Therefore he thought it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should have introduced that into his speech. He understood he would not oppose a short Bill having for its object the limiting of the sentence, the fixing of the fine, and giving the right of appeal. All lawyers were in favour of a right of appeal. He could not help thinking that the whole House would agree to such a measure. He would make it his business to see whether that agreement existed in all parts of the House, and he did not deny himself the hope that among the useful legislation of the session this measure might pass nemine contradicente.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said that this was certainly a most remarkable discussion. It was not often that a Resolution moved from those benches received the practically unanimous assent of the House, and he had only risen to say just one or two practical words. He had no intention of introducing the slightest contro- versial element, but had risen to express his joy at the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about this being something of a scandal, and it seemed to him that in a case where all parties were agreed and where the House of Lords had actually passed a similar measure, if time could not be found to pass an uncontroversial measure of this kind demanded on all sides it was not only a great scandal but would reduce not only the House of Commons but the whole of Parliament to a farce. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he hoped this matter might be set right this session; he would ask him to get the Attorney-General at once to draft a short Bill on the subject, and, giving the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition bench full credit for meaning what he said, and that it was not merely a benevolent expression of good will, he trusted he would support such a measure.


Certainly, if it applies to the whole country.


assented. The Motion they had moved did not apply to Ireland only; it dealt with the law of contempt throughout the so-called United Kingdom. The Bill would be a Bill amending the general law of contempt on three points—the limitation of the sentence of imprisonment, the limitation of the fine, and the right of appeal. The precise limitation could be arranged between the different sides of the House, but no one would be inclined to go behind the limitation, agreed upon in 1883 by the House of Lords. That, however, was a detail, and he thought they could congratulate themselves, if the right hon. Gentleman would promise them to have a Bill drafted and immediately introduced, in the hope that it would meet with universal assent and be passed. They would then at least have the consolation of knowing that one Irish debate, at any rate, had led to a practical result.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said he would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one matter on which he thought he was under a misapprehension. The same law applied in England as in Ireland with reference to property in the Court of Chancery. Where there was any interference, such as interference with an auction, the Court exercised its functions, and he thought the House ought not to be under any misapprehension in reference to what took place before Mr. Justice Ross. The hon. Member for North Westmeath referred in his speech to two properties which were under the control of the Court of Chancery. He lived in the neighbourhood and knew all about it. The burden of his speech was that no persons should renew their agreements for taking this land. The rent was something like twelve or thirteen hundred pounds per annum, and there were about a score of tenants. It was to protect the people who were taking this land and also the estate that action was necessary. The owner of the property might have lost the rent if these speeches had been allowed to go on. Surely some steps were to be taken to put an end to interference with the letting of the land. Where speeches were made in other places, no attempt was made to interfere with the hon. Member, but that would have been no justification for Mr. Justice Ross' allowing them to pass over cases in which there was interference with the property under his control. He thought that upon examination and inquiry, it would be found that in every single case Mr. Justice Ross exercised the greatest, care and discretion in applying the law and only applied it where absolutely necessary to protect the property under his care.


said he objected to the Resolution as it stood. If it was for the general welfare, quite apart from the question of the imprisonment of the hon. Member for North Westmeath that this Motion was brought forward, he could not conceive that the hon. Member who introduced it would have any objection to leaving out the words "especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction! in Ireland." If he did object to it, he was afraid he would not be able to vote for the Motion. The inclusion of these words contained a distinct and direct rebuke to Mr. Justice Ross. He thought it was the duty of every person who desired to see law and order maintained in Ireland to do everything in his power to back up the Judges in the discharge of their duties. They had had it stated from all sides of the House that hon. Members had no complaint to make against Mr. Justice Ross for the manner in which he had acted in this case. He proposed as an Amendment the omission of the words he had quoted.

MR. LONSDALE (Armagh, Mid.)


Amendment proposed— To leave out the words 'especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 36.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lane-Fox, G. R.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) M'Arthur, Charles
Balcarres, Lord Courthope, G. Loyd Moore, William
Baldwin, Stanley Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Morpeth, Viscount
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Craig, Captain James (Down, E. Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Nield, Herbert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Du Cros, Arthur Philip Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Sloan, Thomas Henry
Boyle, Sir Edward Gardner, Ernest Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafi'slu
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Butcher, Samuel Henry Goulding, Edward Alfred Thornton, Percy M.
Carlile, E. Hildred Gretton, John Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W Helmsley, Viscount
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Mr. Fell and Sir William Bull.
Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N. Kimber, Sir Henry
Clive, Percy Archer King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Findlay, Alexander Montagu, E. S.
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Fuller, John Michael F. Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Fullerton, Hugh Morse, L. L.
Alden, Percy Gibb, James (Harrow) Myer, Horatio
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Gill, A. H. Napier, T. B.
Armitage, R. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W. Nicholls, George
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Glover, Thomas Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Goddard. Sir Daniel Ford Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Gooch, George Peabody O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Barker, John Gordon, J. O'Grady, J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Barran, Rowland Hirst Gulland, John W. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Barry, Redmond (Tyrone, N.) Hall, Frederick Parker, James (Halifax)
Beauchamp, E. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Bellairs, Carlyon Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Benn, Sir Williams(Devonp'rt Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Haworth, Arthur A. Pirie, Duncan V.
Bennett, E. N. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Price. C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Hedges, A. Paget Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Helme, Norval Watson Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pullar, Sir Robert
Black, Arthur W. Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.) Radford, G. H.
Boulton, A. C. F. Henry, Charles S. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Brace, William Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Bramsdon, T. A. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Rees, J. D.
Branch, James Higham, John Sharp Rendall, Athelstan
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh) Hobart, Sir Robert Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Holt, Richard Durning Ridsdale, E. A.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hudson, Walter Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Byles, William Pollard Hutton, Alfred Eddison Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cameron, Robert Idris, T. H. W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Illingworth, Percy H. Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Jackson, R. S. Robinson, S.
Cawley, Sir Frederick Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Jardine, Sir J. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. P. Jenkins, J. Ronaldshay, Earl of
Cleland, J. W. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rowlands, J.
Clough, William Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Runciman, Walter
Clynes, J. R. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jowett, F. W. Sears, J. E.
Collins. Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W Kearley, Hudson, E. Seaverns, J. H.
Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Kekewich, Sir George Sedden. J.
Corbett, C H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Laidlaw, Robert Seely, Colonel
Gory, Sir Clifford John Lambert, George Simon, John Allsebrook
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Cox, Harold Lamont, Norman Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Cremer, Sir William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis Soares, Ernest J.
Crossley, William J. Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Spicer, Sir Albert
Curran, Peter Francis Lehmann, R. C. Stanger, H. Y.
Dalziel, James Henry Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.
Davies, David(Montgomery Co. Levy, Sir Maurice Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lewis, John Herbert Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Strauss, E. A. (Abindgon)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lough, Thomas Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lupton, Arnold Summerbell, T.
Duckworth, James Luttrell, Huph Fownes Taylor. Austin (East Toxteth)
Duncan, G. (Barrow-in-Furness Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Mackarness, Frederic C. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Elibank, Master of M'Callum, John M. Thomasson, Franklin
Erskine, David C. M'Crae, George Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset, E
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Evans, Sir Samuel T. Mallet, Charles E. Torrance, Sir A. M.
Everett, R. Lacey Masterman, C. F. G. Toulmin, George
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Menzies, Walter Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Fenwick, Charles Micklem, Nathaniel Vivian, Henry
Ferens, T. R. Middlebrook, William Walton, Joseph
Fiennes, Hon, Eustace Mond, A. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Wardle, George J. White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).
Waring, Walter Whitehead, Rowland Winfrey, R.
Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan Whitley, John Henry Halifax) Younger, George
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer Yoxall, James Henry
Watt, Henry A. Wiles, Thomas
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Williams, J. (Glamorgan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Whitbread, Howard Wills, Arthur Walters Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
White, Sir George (Norfolk) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Pease.
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Gooch, George Peabody O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Greenwood, Hamar (York) O'Brien, William (Cork)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Gulland, John W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud), Gwynn, Stephen Lucius O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Ambrose, Robert Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Doherty, Philip
Armitage, R. Halpin, J. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh O'Dowd, John
Barnard, E. B. Harrington, Timothy O'Grady, J.
Barnes, G. N. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Barry,Redmond (Tyrone, N.) Haworth, Arthur A. O'Malley, William
Bellairs, Carlyon Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Benn, Sir Williams (Devonp'rt Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Shee, James John
Bennett, E. N. Hazleton, Richard Parker, James (Halifax)
Berridge, T. H. D. Healy, Timothy Michael Pearson,W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hedges, A. Paget Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Black, Arthur W. Helme, Norval Watson Power, Patrick Joseph
Boland, John Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Bowerman, C. W. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Reddy, M.
Brace, William Higham, John Sharp Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bramsdon, T. A. Hogan, Michael Redmond, William (Clare)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Holland, Sir William Henry Rendall, Athelstan
Brodie, H. C. Hudson, Walter Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Illingworth, Percy H. Ridsdale, E. A.
Bryce, J. Annan Johnson, John (Gateshead) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burke, E. Haviland- Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Byles, William Pollard Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Jowett, F. W. Roche, John (Galway, East)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Kavanagh, Walter M. Rowlands, J.
Clancy, John Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Clough, William Kettle, Thomas Michael Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne
Clynes, J. R. Kilbride, Denis Seddon, J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kine, Alfred John (Knutsford) Seely, Colonel
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Laidlaw, Robert Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Lambert, George Sheehy, David
Crean, Eugene Lamont, Norman Silcock, Thomas Ball
Cremer, Sir William Randal Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Simon, John Allsebrook
Crosfield, A. H. Lehmann, R. C. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S
Cullinan, J. Lewis, John Herbert Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Davies, David(Montgomery Co. Lough, Thomas Summerbell, T.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Lundon, W. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Delany, William Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Duckworth. James Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Duffy, William J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Tomkinson, James
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. Verney, F. W.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) M'Callum, John M. Wadsworth, J.
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Crae, George Walters, John Tudor
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Hugh, Patrick A. Waring, Walter
Evans, Sir Samuel T. M'Kean, John White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Everett, R. Lacey Meagher, Michael White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Farrell, James Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles Micklem, Nathaniel Wiles, Thomas
Ffreneh, Peter Middlebrook, William Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Williamson, A.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Morley, Rt. Hon. John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Flynn, James Christopher Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Fullerton, Hugh Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Gill, A. H. Nannetti, Joseph P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Glendinning, R. G. Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Captain Donelan and Mr.
Glover, Thomas Nicholls, George Patrick O'Brien.
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Baldwin, Stanley Beckett. Hon. Gervase Boyle, Sir Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Bignold, Sir Arthur Bull, Sir William James
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Bowles, G. Stewart Burdett-Coutts, W.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Gordon, J. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend.)
Carlile, E. Hildred Gretton, John Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Cave, George Guinness, Walter Edward Percy, Earl
Cavendish,Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Keswick, William Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Kimber, Sir Henry Salter, Arthur Glavell
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N. Lane-Fox, G. R. Sloan. Thomas Henry
Clive, Percy Archer Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Courthope, G. Loyd Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) M'Calmont, Colonel James Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Dairymple, Viscount Magnus, Sir Philip Thornton, Percy M.
Du Cros, Arthur Philip Moore, William
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Fletcher, J. S. Nield, Herbert Charles Craig and Mr.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Lonsdale.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

Before the Motion is put finally I wish to make it perfectly clear that, while we accept the general decision at which the House has arrived, as argued by both the Ministers who have spoken, we do express regret that the Government have not seen fit to accept the Amendment to omit these words, inasmuch as neither of the Ministers, not even the Attorney-General, who is not slow as a rule to argue cases which find favour with gentlemen below the gangway, has attempted to justify these words, namely, that the necessity for this reform lies in any administration of the law in Ireland. The justification for my intervention would be found in this comment which I heard below the gangway immediately after the numbers were announced: "Not a friend is to be found above the gangway for Mr. Justice Ross." If that is the comment made in this House, what is likely to be the kind of comment or criticism passed on our action in Ireland, where some will consider that this involves the condemnation of the action of an Irish Judger I only intervene in order to remind the House that the representative of the law in Ireland in this House, the head of the Irish bar, and the chief Minister for Ireland, have both disavowed in the most explicit terms any association with any charge against Mr. Justice Ross in the administration of the law in any case, and particularly in the one which we have debated, and therefore it is surprising that the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment which was the logical conclusion of their own speeches, and which would have expressed the views that they had themselves given utterance to, namely, that an amendment of the law is necessary. Further, when it was suggested by my right hon. and learned friend beside me in the form of an interruption, that his assent to the reform must be conditional upon applying to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Government immediately assented, and yet they are going to put on the Paper a Resolution which contends that this reform is necessary in consequence of what has taken place in Ireland. It is a most illogical conclusion to arrive at. I do not desire to carry on the debate. Everything that I would desire in regard to the general question has been said by my right hon. friend, and I am of course not competent to discuss the legal aspect. There seems to be a general desire that there should bean amendment in the law, and so far as I have ascertained all lawyers in the House agree. With all the respect which I honestly profess for the law and the bar, I am a little suspicious when I find lawyers of all parties, lawyers past and lawyers present, all deciding that some change in the law is necessary. It does not augur well for the litigants and for those who may come within the limits of the law. As I understand there

is nobody prepared to resist this change in the law, I certainly should not offer any resistance to it. But in assenting to the Resolution, I must not be supposed to assent to that part which appears to censure the administration of the law by certain Judges in Ireland.

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 37.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Esslemont, George Birnie Lamont, Norman
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Evans, Sir Samuel T. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Everett, R. Lacey Lehmann, R. C.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Farrell, James Patrick Lewis, John Herbert
Ambrose, Robert Fenwick, Charles Lough, Thomas
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Ffrench, Peter Lundon, W.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Barnard, E. B. Flavin, Michael Joseph Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Barnes, G. N. Flynn, James Christopher MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Fullerton, Hugh MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N. Gill, A. H. MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Bellairs, Carlyon Glendinning, R. G. M'Callum, John M.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Glover, Thomas M'Crae, George
Bennett, E. N. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Berridge, T. H. D. Gooch, George Peabody M'Kean, John
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Greenwood, Hamar (York) Meagher, Michael
Black, Arthur W. Gulland, John W. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.
Boland, John Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Micklem, Nathaniel
Bowerman, C. W. Halpin, J. Middlebrook, William
Brace, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Mooney, J. J.
Bramsdon, T. A. Harmsworth,R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Harrington, Timothy Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brodie, H. C. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Harvey,W. E.(Derbyshire, N. E. Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Bryce, J. Annan Haworth, Arthur A. Nicholls, George
Burke, E. Haviland- Hayden. John Patrick Nolan, Joseph
Byles, William Pollard Hazel, Dr. A. E. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hazleton, Richard O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.,
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Healy, Timothy Michael O'Brien, William (Cork)
Clancy, John Joseph Helme, Norval Watson O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Clough, William Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clynes, J. R. Higham, John Sharp O'Doherty, Philip
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Hogan, Michael O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Holland, Sir William Henry O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Crean, Eugene Hudson, Walter O'Dowd, John
Cremer, Sir William Randal Illingworth, Percy H. O'Grady. J.
Crosfield, A. H. Johnson, John (Gateshead) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Cullinan, J. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N
Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Malley, William
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Delany, William Jowett, F. W. O'Shee, James John
Duckworth, James Kavanagh, Walter M. Parker, James (Halifax)
Duffy, William J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pearson,W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye).
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Kettle, Thomas Michael Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Kilbride, Denis Power, Patrick Joseph
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Price, C. K. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Laidlaw, Robert Radford, G. H.
Raphael, Herbert H. Seddon, J. Waring, Walter
Reddy, M. Seely, Colonel White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Redmond, William (Clare) Silcock, Thomas Ball Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Rendall, Athelstan Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wiles, Thomas
Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ridsdale, E. A. Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Williamson, A.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Summerbell, T. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roche, John (Galway, East) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Rowlands, J. Thompson,J. W. H.(Somerset. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland) Tomkinson, James Captain Donelan and Mr. Pat
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Verney, P. W. rick O'Brien.
Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne Wadsworth, J.
Baldwin, Stanley Dalrymple, Viscount Magnus, Sir Philip
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morpeth, Viscount
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Du Cros, Arthur Philip Nield, Herbert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fell, Arthur O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fletcher, J. S. Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Bowles, G. Stewart Forster, Henry William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Boyle, Sir Edward Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Percy, Earl
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gordon, J. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James Gretton, John Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, Samuel Henry Guinness, Walter Edward Salter, Arthur Clavell
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Hamilton, Marquess of Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Cave, George Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Keswick, William Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kimber, Sir Henry Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lane-Fox, G. R. Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Thornton, Percy M.
Clive, Percy Archer Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Courthope, G. Loyd Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) M'Calmont, Colonel James Moore and Captain Craig.

Resolved, That the jurisdiction of Judges in dealing with Contempt of Court is practically arbitrary and unlimited, and, especially in view of recent exercises of that jurisdiction in Ireland, calls for the action of Parliament with a view to its definition and limitation.