Sitting of 14 February 1881

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Lancashire County Justices*; Swansea Corporation Loans *.
PUBLIC PILLS—Ordered—First Heading—Presumption of Life (Scotland) * [86]; Middlesex Land Registry*[87].
Second Heading—Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) [83].
Select Committee—Married Women's Property (Scotland)*[45], other Members added.
Committee—Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [79]—Third Night—R. P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he understood that the promoters of the Pill unconditionally withdrew the 17th clause, which contained the provision by which they thought to set aside the 92nd section of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. That clause being unconditionally withdrawn, he should not press his opposition to the Bill, but would withdraw the Motion, which he had placed upon the Paper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the New Courts of Justice will be ready for occupation; and when the clock outside the Courts will be in its place?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I have every reason to believe that the New Courts of Justice will be entirely complete and ready for occupation by the Judges by Easter, 1882, and that by that time a clock will also be in its place in the tower.
  MR. CHARLES M'LARENasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that for more than a year the clock on the tower of the Royal Courts of Justice has been without hands, and that, owing to the peculiar construction of the face of the clock, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see the hands if any should be placed there; and whether, before giving the clock hands, he will provide it with a more suitable face?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, my hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that there is a clock on the tower of the New Courts of Justice. There is the face of the clock, but there are no works, and naturally there are no hands. A clock, however, will be placed there during the present year; and as the face of the clock is of glass there will be no difficulty in making the hands visible both by day and by night.

  STATE OF IERELAND—COUNTY OF ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  761
  land, If he could state to the House on what grounds the barony of Boyle, in the county of Roscommon, has been proclaimed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that parts of the County Roscommon were declared to be in such a state of disturbance as to require an additional establishment of police, which was accordingly provided in the district of Boyle, which was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. He saw by the Returns that had been laid before the House that there were at present four persons under special police protection, and 16 others who had to be specially watched over by the police in the County Roscommon.

  MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, SOUTH KENSINGTON—THE PUBLIC COLLECTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES REEDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Botanical and Mineralogical Collections have been removed from the British Museum to the Museum of Natural History at South Kensington, and when the new museum will be open to the public?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I am informed by the Trustees of the British Museum that both the Botanical and Mineralogical Collections have been already removed from the British Museum to the new Museum of Natural History at South Kensington, and are now being arranged there. It is expected that these Collections will be open to the public on the next Bank Holiday—namely, Easter Monday, April 18.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—WESTBURY ELECTION PETITION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Lush, in the case of the trial of the Election Petition for the Borough of Westbury, and to his strictures on the conduct of George Cornish and William Cornish:—
  "We feel it our duty to report these two persona to the Speaker of the House of Commons as having" been guilty of corrupt practices, in order that the attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions may take such action as
  762
  to them may seem fit, to bring the offenders to trial and punishment. No language is too strong to characterise the conduct of a man who intruded himself into the ranks of a party to which he had not professed to belong, and made it his business to go about corrupting the humbler class of voters, and endeavouring to tempt them into crimes by promises and offers of reward, and that, too, from the basest of motives;"
  and, whether he proposes to direct a prosecution, as suggested by the Judge; and, if not, if he would explain to the House on what grounds?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had considered whether these men ought to be prosecuted, and whether there was a likelihood of their being convicted, for it was very injurious that an abortive prosecution should be commenced on the part of the Government. These men had only on one occasion been found with money in their possession, and they had not been detected actually passing money to any voter. Neither of them, according to the learned Judge, appeared to have gained a single vote. Under these circumstances, though he believed the men to be guilty, he had come to the conclusion that a prosecution would not be likely to result in a conviction; and, therefore, he thought it better not to institute proceedings.

  ARMY—LANDGUARD FORT.
  MR. BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Engineer officers have given up as hopeless boring for water at Landguard Fort; and, what steps they propose to take for supplying the garrison with fresh water?
  MR. CHILLERS: No, Sir; the boring has been temporarily suspended only, and will shortly be resumed with reasonable prospects of success. Pending the result no other steps will be taken for increasing the water supply of the fort.

  AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR—COST OF OCCUPATION.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether an official statement lately made to the effect that the annual cost of the occupation of Candahar would amount to £1,400,000, was based upon an official

  763
  report of the Governor General of India, drawn up with the assistance of the Commander in Chief and other duly constituted advisers in India, or whether it was founded upon the conjecture of some person or persons residing in England; whether this estimated cost is over and above the annual military expenditure in India; and, whether he will lay the details of the estimate upon the Table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, no estimate, so far as I am aware, has been framed of the probable annual cost of the occupation of the Province of Candahar, for we have no certain information as to the force which would be required to hold that extensive tract of country. The annual cost of occupying the City of Candahar and the posts on the line of communication with our old Frontier has been roughly estimated by competent authority in England at £1,400,000; but this estimate has been made on the basis of a smaller force than that which is now stationed at Candahar and on the line of communication. The cost of the present force, calculated at the ordinary Indian rates in time of peace, is rather over £950,000 a-year. Taking into consideration the additional charges, military and political, incident to the service beyond the Frontier, it is considered that the whole expenditure would not be far short of double the ordinary Indian cost for a similar force, which would bring the amount to nearly £2,000,000. No estimate has been framed which is based on official report from India; but the number of troops now serving beyond the Frontier on the line of communication was settled by the Government of India, and the statement of the normal cost of those troops serving in India is derived from official statements prepared in India. The rough estimate which I have given is an estimate of the cost of the force required for the occupation of Candahar and its communications. In my opinion, this would be a simple addition to the ordinary military expenditure of India, which, I think, would have rather to be increased than be susceptible of reduction in consequence of this measure. But this is, of course, a matter of opinion, and is open to discussion. Some details bearing on this estimate will be contained in the Papers which I propose to lay on the Table.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—ATHY MODEL SCHOOL FARM.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a Commissioner of National Education in Ireland negotiated with the landlord of Athy Model School Farm for the sale of the new buildings; and, if the Commissioner who sold for £200 the buildings, which cost nearly £2,000, and the landlord are the same person?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had no doubt that the allusion in the Question was to the Duke of Leinster; and he thought it would have been better if the hon. Member had openly said so. But any innuendo which the Question contained was unfounded. The buildings referred to by the hon. Member were put up in 18–18. They were designed for educational purposes, and their original cost was £962, not £2,000. A Committee of the Board of National Education, of which Committee the Duke of Leinster was not a member, resolved to surrender the farm and advise the Board to request the Duke to accept the surrender and to state his terms. This he did, paying £200 for the offices. The surrender was authorized by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The Duke of Leinster, as a Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, had had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the negotiations of the Board.

  POST OFFICE—TELEPHONIC COMMIT. NICATION IN DUBLIN.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Secretary to the Dublin Post Office has written to the Dublin Corporation threatening them with legal penalties if they carry out an agreement with the Telephone Company, by which, for certain concessions, they as owners of the streets agree to permit the lines of that Company to cross the public thoroughfares; whether he is aware that in consequence the Corporation have suspended the completion of an arrangement of great public advantage, by which all the police stations, fire brigade, and fire-escape stations, as well as the various subscribers to the Telephonic Exchange, would be placed in instant commuuication day and night

  765
  with the central fire brigade station; whether the letter in question was written under legal advice; whether as a matter of fact the Post Office can legally prohibit owners, public or private, permitting a wire for telegraphic or telephonic, or any other purpose, being run over their individual property; whether, if no such legal power exists, the letter will be withdrawn; and, whether, if the Post Office have the power to prevent the carrying out of the arrangement in question, and are determined to exercise it, he will take steps to afford to the authorities and citizens of Dublin by some other means the facilities and protection of which they will thus be deprived?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Carlow, I beg to state that the Secretary to the Post Office in Dublin has informed the Dublin Corporation that an opinion has been given by the Law Officers of the Crown that the erection of telegraphs on public roads and streets, by persons or bodies not authorized by Act of Parliament, and, therefore, not within the purview of the Telegraph Act of 1863, is illegal. From a letter which has been received from the Town Clerk of Dublin, I am aware that the arrangements proposed to be made with the Telephone Company have been broken off. In the same letter application is made for the terms upon which the Department would establish the communication with the Fire Brigade station to which the hon. Member refers, and so soon as the necessary inquiries have been made a reply will be given. I may add that the Post Office is willing to allow private persons or companies to establish telephonic communication on certain conditions, and that the Post Office is itself prepared to establish telephonic communication in Dublin and other towns on terms which have already been stated in the advertisements which have appeared in the newspapers and in the notices to the public exhibited at the various post offices.

  POST OFFICE LAWS—DETENTION AND OPENING PRIVATE LETTERS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Postmaster General, Whether any officials of the Government are at present empowered to open and read, for purposes of State, private letters entrusted
  766
  to the care of his department, either in Great Britain or Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the duty of answering this Question belongs to the Secretary of State, and not to the Postmaster General, who has no responsibility in this matter. I will, therefore, with the leave of the House, reply to it. The power of the Secretary of State to open and detain letters is one which is reserved and sanctioned by Parliament in the Statute 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 25, and has been deliberately continued ever since. The employment of that power is an act of the gravest responsibility, not to be exercised except upon urgent necessity for the safety of the State and of Her Majesty's subjects. The existence, known to the Government, of treasonable plots carried out by secret societies, like the Fenian conspiracy, which pursues its felonious ends by the most atrocious means, would justify and require the use of that power in the present as in past times. But the very nature of the dangers which might demand its employment is such as requires the Minister intrusted by Parliament with the right and the duty of putting it in force to ask the support of this House in declining to make any statement which might baffle and defeat the object for which it was conferred. This power should either be taken away from the Secretary of State, or, if the grave responsibility of possessing it is imposed upon him, he should be protected in times like the present in his discretion as to its exorcise.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has or has not exercised the power in the case of any Member or Members of the House during the present Session of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If I were to reply to that Question, it would be in exactly the same words as those employed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the answer which he has just given.

  TEINDS OR TITHES (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER (for Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICK)asked the Lord Advocate, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate on

  767
  the subject of Teinds in Scotland this Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend,I have to state that a Bill is in preparation for the improvement of the law with regard to Teinds or Tithes in Scotland, and that it is my intention to introduce this Bill as soon as the state of Public Business will permit.

  ARMY—MILITIA EMBODIMENT.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is intended to embody any portion of the Militia, in order to render available a sufficient number of full grown soldiers for ser-vice in the Transvaal and Asbanti Wars?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir"; I have no such intention. Before any portion of the Militia can be embodied it would be necessary for Her Majesty to communicate to Parliament the fact that there existed "imminent national danger" or "great emergency." In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government no such imminent danger or emergency exists.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICE 61—THE ARMENIANS.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Sixty-first Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which is as follows:—
  "The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically make known the steps taken to this effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application,"
  If he would state to the House what "improvements and reforms" have been carried out, what "steps taken to this effect" have been "made known to the Powers," and what guarantee the Armenians have obtained against attacks from Circassians and Kurds?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the various administrative and judicial reforms which have been promised by the Porte will be found in their Notes of July 5 and October 3, which have already been laid before Parliament. The inadequacy of the proposed measures was
  768
  pointed out by the Representatives of the Powers; but I regret to say that the reforms promised have as yet either not been put into operation, or carried out in such a manner that no benefit has been derived from them.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Vice President- of the Council, If he has any further information of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Wigtonshire; whether there is any further outbreak in Scotland; and, whether, in view of the difficulties in the way of uniform and united action among the Local Government Boards in Scotland, he will not advise the absolute prohibition of the transit of cattle from one infected district or county to another, except for purposes of slaughter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am glad to be able to state, Sir, that the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Wig-tonshire was entirely unfounded. There is at present, so far as we know, no foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. In reply to the second Question, I have to say that, as we find the imports of cattle from England and Wales at this period of the year are very small, and that the local authorities of the large consuming populations of Glasgow and Edinburgh have already prohibited importation, we have decided on extending the prohibition to the whole of Scotland, so far as imports from England and Wales are concerned, and an Order is in course of preparation to that effect. Store cattle may still be imported from Ireland, as there is no infection in that country.

  ENDOWED INSTITUTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL—GRANTOWN FEMALE INFANT SCHOOL.
  MR. THOMASSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the scheme of the Grantown Female Infant School, by which a recent endowment for female education is to be used for bursaries for children of both sexes, is in accordance with the principle of the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Bill of this Session; and, whether it is intended by that Bill that funds left for the education of boys are to be devoted in part to the education of girls?
  MR. PENNINGTONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that by the Provisional Order relating to the Grantown Female Infant School, laid upon the Table of the House on January 6th, an endowment made in the year 1861 for the exclusive benefit of female children, has been appropriated for the higher education of children of both sexes, and for the foundation of bursaries; whether such bursaries are for girls only, or for boys; and, whether, considering that endowments for the education of girls are comparatively few in number, the Government approve of the appropriation of any portion of this endowment to the education of boys?
  MR. HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will withdraw the Provi-visional Order relating to the Grantown Infant Female School until the state of public business will enable a discussion to be taken upon the propriety of the scheme sanctioned by such Order?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Question relating to the Grantown Provisional Order will be answered by the Lord Advocate, as the Education Department is not the final authority under the Scotch Act of 1878. The Endowments Bill of this Session specially proposes in Section 15, that in framing schemes provision shall be made for extending to girls the benefits of endowments, and so long as I am associated with the Education Department I will endeavour to secure a fair share for the girls.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LARBN): The Grantown Endowment consists of two legacies amounting to £1,800, one-half of which has been applied to building a school, which has, in fact, been used for the education of children of both sexes. The Governing Body desired to legalize that usage. The Commissioners, after talcing evidence, and without objection from the locality, reported in favour of the scheme, and the Education Department saw no objections to it. It did not appear to me, as Legal Adviser of the Home Department, that there were any good reasons for disagreeing with the recommendation of the Governing Body and the Commissioners. The English Endowed Schools Act, 1869, contains a direction to the Commissioners in framing schedules to provide for the extension to girls
  770
  of the benefit of educational endowments. I therefore could not suppose that the extension of the benefit of the Grantown Endowment to both sexes was either inequitable in itself or opposed to Parliamentary policy.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson), that as the Education Department, the Commissioners, the Trustees, and the Lord Advocate were all agreed that this Provisional Order should go on, he did not think he would be justified in withdrawing it.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ATTACK ON A GERMAN VESSEL.
  MR. ARTHUR COHENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as lately reported from Gibraltar, that Her Majesty's Government have declined to cooperate with the German Government in sending a ship of war to punish a tribe on the West Coast of Africa who had been guilty of attacking a crew of a shipwrecked vessel; or, if not, what action Her Majesty's Government has taken in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a German steamer, the Carles, having been plundered and the crew ill-treated by some savages on the Liberian coast, the German Government have sent the Victoria to exact a reparation, and Count Minister has asked that the British authorities on the coast may be instructed to give all assistance in their power to the commander of this vessel. To this Her Majesty's Government have agreed, and instructions have already been sent to the Governor of Sierra Leone and the senior naval officer. The active co-operation of Her Majesty's Government was not asked, and there is consequently no foundation for the statement that it was refused. I may add that the German Government hate given positive assurances that they do not wish to engage in military operations against Liberia, but that they wished to induce the Liberian Government to assist in punishing the savages.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has heard that distress

  771
  prevails among the labouring class in different parts of the county Limerick; and, if so, whether he will take any steps to have the works which were passed at the different Road Sessions throughout that county commenced without further delay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, a great want of employment, unfortunately, existed amongst the working classes in the County Limerick, and the Boards of Guardians throughout the county were authorized to issue out-door relief under Section 3 of the Relief Act while it confined. Extraordinary presentment sessions were convened and works passed at them, and in five baronies the works that had been passed had been recommended by the Local Government Board? Inspector, besides which the works passed in two other baronies were under his consideration.

  ARMY—ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS (GUERNSEY).
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Catholic soldiers of the 87th regiment and of the artillery at present stationed in Guernsey did not attend Divine Service on the Feasts of the Circumcision and the Epiphany although requested to do so by the chaplain, in accordance with War Office Letter 1299, and why the commanding officers of those regiments took no notice whatever of the chaplain requesting that the soldiers should attend?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to inform him that I have received this morning letters from the officers at Guernsey commanding the Artillery and 87th Regiment on the subject of his inquiry. The officer commanding the Artillery is himself a Roman Catholic, and he says that the feast of the Circumcision, generally known as New Year's Day, fell this year on a Saturday, when there were only fatigue parades, and any Roman Catholic soldier might have had leave to go to Mass. Father Doran's letter, however, did not roach him till noon on that day. He gave leave to all the Roman Catholic soldiers who wished to go to Mass on the feast of the Epiphany, but no soldier gave in his name. The letter of the Roman Catholic chaplain to the Colonel of the 87th Regiment was addressed to
  772
  him by name, not by office, and as he was absent on leave it was forwarded to him, but did not reach him in time. Had it been addressed to the officer in actual command, the Roman Catholic soldiers would have been allowed to go to Mass on both days.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS)—MEDIATION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONbegged to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question, of which he had given him private Notice, Whether any steps were taken to communicate to Sir George Colloy the substance of Lord Kimberley's telegram to President Brand asking the mediation of the Orange Free State before Sir George Colley fought the battle of Laing's Nek on January the 28th, seeing that the said telegram was sent to President Brand two days previously?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The telegram of the 26th did not, as my hon. Friend supposes, suggest the mediation of the Orange Free State. It was a reply to a suggestion made by President Brand that certain terms should be offered to the people of the Transval, through Sir Hercules Robinson, if they ceased, from armed opposition. The answer of Her Majesty's Government was simply an amplification of its previous letter of the 10th to Mr. Blyth, and his telegram of the 11th, both of which are in the hands of hon. Members. There was no object whatever to be gained by re-communicating to Sir George Colley what he had already known since the 12th of January—namely, that Her Majesty's Government was quite prepared to make certain terms if the Boers ceased from armed opposition.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  COLONEL STANLEY: Perhaps the Secretary of State for War will allow me to ask him a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether he can tell us yet what decision the Government have come to in the matter of sending reinforcements to the Transvaal; and also, whether any further news of the actual progess of the campaign has been received?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say, continuing the Answer I gave him on Friday last, that the actual offer made to Sir George Colley, and which I then expressed in general terms, was to send him two regiments and a wing of Infantry, 1,500 drafts to the Infantry regiments now with him, two regiments of Cavalry with their horses, and a battery of horse or field Artillery, all to arrive in March. Sir George Colley, in reply, late on Friday night, asked only for the Infantry drafts, one regiment of Cavalry, and some Artillery drafts. I conferred with Lord Kimberley and my Military Advisers on Saturday, and we determined to send all that Sir George Colley had expressed his readiness to accept, and in addition another Cavalry regiment with their horses and a transport company of the Army Service Corps with their mules, and all the necessary arrangements have been made accordingly. My noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) will be interested in knowing that we are sending out with the Cavalry regiment from this country a supply of long Martini-Henry rifles with slings, and I hope that the experiment will be satisfactory. My right hon. and gallant Friend also asks mo what telegrams we have received. Since those published in this morning's papers the only telegram of importance is the following, dated yesterday, from the General Officer Commanding, Natal and Transvaal, to the Secretary of State for War:—
  "Mount Prospect, Feb. 13, 3.10 p.m.
  "Report received from Administrator, Pretoria, dated the 14th of January. Successful attack on the 6th, by Colonel Gildea, with 400 men, on laager on Reman's River; Boers twice fired on troops after hoisting white flag. All well, forts safe and well provisioned. Boers' proclamation, 20th, full of false statements. Anstruther's death confirmed. Report received from Major Montague, Standerton, dated the 30th of January; attacked on the 29th of December (the next three words are unintelligible, they read thus—'infested smee has); lost nine killed and wounded; raised corps 75 mounted men; keeps circle two miles clear; acting on defensive. Health and spirits excellent; position safe; can hold out two months if necessary."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELLOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the statement that only one troop of the 15th Hussars now serving in South Africa was mounted?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, it is difficult to answer such a Question without Notice; but so far as I can recollect, and I think my memory is accurate, no such statement has been made by Sir George Colley or by any officer acting in Natal or the Transvaal.

  COERCION (IRELAND)—ACTION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall ask the Vice President of the Council, If he is correctly reported in the public journals to have stated in a recent speech at New Cross, that—
  "The Conservatives were always ready to vote for coercion, and to make it as hot and as strong as possible;"
  and whether those terms were intended to describe the motives of the support which had hitherto been given by the Conservative Party to Her Majesty's Government in a matter which the Government declared to be urgently necessary to preserve peace and order in Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think I can answer the hon. Gentleman at once. I did use those words, but I used also other words which he has not quoted, and which were to the effect that the Conservative Party had behaved exceedingly well in the present juncture.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I did not read those words in the Report.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 79.]
  (Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th February.]
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).
  MR. R. POWERmoved, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "wherever." He should be sorry if the Government declined to make any concession in regard to the wording of this clause. When

  775
  a similar measure was introduced by a Conservative Government, several important concessions were made in order to satisfy the scruples of the Irish Members. So far, he was sorry to say, Her Majesty's Government had not manifested a similar spirit. In the Westmeath Act the words "wherever committed" did not occur, and he did not see that they were necessary in the present measure. The clause, as it stood, conferred very extraordinary powers upon the Lord Lieutenant not only in regard to Ireland, but also in connection with the acts of persons in America, Australia, or any other part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told them that one of his reasons for introducing the Bill was that he might be able to put down certain dissolute ruffians and blackguards whom the police knew very well. If they knew all these men, and the villages where they were to be found, why should they ask for powers to arrest two or three Americans who might go over to Ireland with the purest intentions, and find themselves arrested the moment they got there? In point of fact, every man going from America to Ireland would be looked upon with suspicion, and arrested merely because he happened to come from America. He knew a case in which this actually occurred. A man was arrested, and although there was not a particle of proof against him, he was sent to gaol simply because he happened to come from America. It was only owing to the exertions of the then Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) that this man was released from prison. From the moment he was released his steps were tracked, he could not go into the country, or pass from house to house, without being followed by a detective, and so much did he suffer from this persecution, that one night, when he was returning home, he threw himself over the bridge of Waterford and was drowned. He sincerely hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "wherever."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'wherever' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERopposed the Amendment, and said, it would be absurd
  776
  to pass a Bill if it did not include high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, wherever committed. The effect of the Amendment was to declare that although there was reason to suspect a man of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, yet if those treasonable practices were committed outside Ireland, the man who committed them should not be arrested if he went to Ireland. It was quite possible for a man to plan treason beyond the limits of Ireland with the view of carrying it out in Ireland, and it would be almost ridiculous that there should be no power in the Act to arrest that man when he landed in Ireland for the purpose of carrying out the treason he had planned elsewhere.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked if the Committee was to understand that if a man planned treason, or was guilty of treasonable practices in England, he would not be liable to arrest so long as he remained in England? That would naturally follow if the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were to be followed up to their conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman said that if a man was guilty of high treason, and went to Ireland to carry his treason into effect, he would be arrested and put in gaol when he reached Ireland. But suppose that the same man stopped in England to give effect to his treasonable offences. What did Her Majesty's Government propose to do with him? It occurred to him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) that the high treason was just as likely to be committed, if committed at all, in England as in Ireland. Certainly, if there was any truth in the stories of high treason which they were told in regard to other times, any traitor meditating high treason against Her Majesty's Government could strike that Government on English ground far more effectually than on Irish soil. Was it intended to abandon the whole of Great Britain to men who were engaged in treasonable practices? ["No!"] Then why confine this Bill to Ireland, and why invite, in the peaceable communities of Great Britain the machinations of these traitors, saying to them—"Come over here to England, and you may pursue your objects with comparative impunity; whereas, if you go to Ireland, you will be taken up on suspicion?" The Government by this clause placed themselves in that miser-

  777
  able dilemma. If there were men who did acts here which would justify their arrest in the event of their going to Ireland, why were they not arrested on this side of Holyhead? They were to be perfectly free in Wales, or in Scotland, or in England. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly not.] Then was the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters in favour of extending the provisions of this measure to England? If they were, let them have the courage of their convictions, and say so. There was a reason why this word "wherever" ought to be omitted from the clause, and it was a reason which he thought ought to commend itself to the minds of Her Majesty's Government. They had manufactured and created a new crime—a crime that was never before known to the Statute Book in England—namely, treasonable practices. It was a crime unknown to the English Law from the days of William the Conqueror down to the present hour. What wore the treasonable practices that were to come within the purview of this measure? It could not be treason, for that was dealt with as treason. It could not be treason-felony, because that was dealt with as treason-felony. What, then, were treasonable practices? And having taken upon themselves the odium of creating a new crime, Her Majesty's Government came to the illogical conclusion that a man was to be free to commit it in England, but was to be arrested in Ireland on the mere suspicion of attempting it. Nothing could be more unjust or more illogical. If this odious work was to be done, let them make it as odious as they could upon those who had to do it.
  DR. COMMINSthought there was a great flaw in the reasoning of the right Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He seemed to suppose that a person might be guilty of treason, treason felony, or treasonable practices—whatever they might be—in England or in any other country, but that he could only be arrested if he went to Ireland. Nothing could be a greater mistake, and if it was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, then the right hon. Gentleman's argument was altogether baseless. Wherever the Chief Secretary had got his law, it was bad. Whoever concocted a treasonable conspiracy, and went from England, or any other country, to Ire-
  778
  land for the purpose of carrying it out was guilty of treason or treason-felony in Ireland, and as the law now stood could be arrested and prosecuted in Ireland. It was only necessary to remind the Committee of the case of O'Flaherty. He was not proved to have been guilty of any treasonable offence in Ireland; but as soon as he landed in Ireland he was arrested, and he was tried in Ireland and convicted, on the evidence of an informer, of treasonable acts committed in the United States of America. The same thing might be done again, and any person guilty of offences specified as treason or treason-felony could be arrested and tried. The offence did not differ from the offence of treason as defined in the Act of Edward III., except that the Act of Edward III. required the evidence of two persons, in order to prove an overt act, whereas this Act would only require the evidence of one witness. Under both Acts any person whatever, who was guilty of treason or treason-felony, could be arrested, tried, and convicted in Ireland. Therefore, he submitted that it was quite unnecessary to retain the words "wherever committed" in the clause.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, the Committee knew that the Bill was to be confined to Ireland. He wished to know, therefore, upon what principle persons were to be made liable in Ireland for acts done in Great Britain or elsewhere? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had pointedly referred to the impossibility of obtaining evidence in England, Scotland, or Wales, and he had also plainly indicated that it would be difficult to find anything approaching evidence in a foreign country.
  MR. BIGGAR,was of opinion that Her Majesty's Government were most unreasonable in demanding that this word should be retained in the clause. The Bill was based, first of all, on reasonable suspicion; and it would be necessary to place before the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary a certain amount of information, in order to enable them to form a judgment as to the reasonableness of the suspicion. If the offence was committed in Ireland, the Government would be able to obtain something in the nature of direct evidence, and, at the very least, would be able to make inquiries; but if the information was only to be obtained in another country,

  779
  the Executive Government would have no means of ascertaining to what extent the information given to them was of value, or how far the reasonableness of the suspicion was justified. He, therefore, submitted that it would be unjust to punish persons for treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, unless they had been committed in Ireland.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he did not take any very particular interest in the Amendment; but it had amused him to see how completely the Government had shifted their premises. In the first place, they said it was so hard to get evidence in Ireland that they must have power to arrest and imprison persons in Irelandfor a year and a-half without evidence, and without sending them before a jury. But now, they said that the very crimes of which they complained might be committed in England or in America, and if the people who were guilty of them went to Ireland, then they might be arrested and put in prison. But if the offences wore committed in England or America, why wait for 18 months before bringing the offenders to trial, seeing that the Government would be quite as able to try them in England as in Ireland? As he had said, he cared very little for the Amendment; but he was curious to know why this extraordinary change of position on the part of the Government had taken place.
  MR. FINIGANwished to know why the Government, if they insisted on retaining the word "wherever," did not extend the Bill to England? He certainly thought the question which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was one which required the attention of the Irish Law Officers. It certainly followed that if they were allowed to send a man to prison in Ireland for having made speeches in England which amounted to treason or treason-felony, or came within that mystic range of offences described as treasonable practices, they should also have the power of arresting the offender when the offence was committed. He was anxious to know what international right made treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices committed in St. Petersburg, Paris, or New York punishable in Ireland? He thought the Government were acting, not only in a spirit hostile to the ordinary Statute Law, but
  780
  hostile also to International Law. It would seem, however, that they had made up their mind to overthrow in Ireland everything in the shape of law. His own opinion was that at the present moment the ordinary law was thoroughly upheld and carried out in Ireland; and if he thought that there was such a thing in existence in that country as treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, he should feel it his duty to take a very different part in this debate from that which he was taking. But he did not believe that either treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices existed, or, if they did, that they were of such a nature that they could be dealt with by the ordinary law. He, therefore, thought that the Government, by their Legal Advisors, were bound to show the legal bearing of the word "wherever." No logical reason had as yet been given why it should be retained; while, on the other hand, very good reasons had been given by his hon. Friends why it should be struck out of the clause. The Chief Secretary talked about having proof, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it would be obtained from foreign countries. But, on the other hand, he understood the Law Officers of the Government to say that they wanted no proof whatever, but only reasonable suspicion. He hoped the Government would omit the word, and consent to confine the Bill to acts done in Ireland; or, if they insisted upon it, that they would then extend the measure to England.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he could not understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in favour of extending the clause to acts committed in England and other countries. He thought it would be most dangerous to make such a provision apply to acts done in foreign countries. It would be only necessary to learn that a person was going to Ireland and then to forward information to the Government that he had been guilty of treasonable practices in America, or elsewhere, in order to secure his arrest the moment he lauded. He would not object to the provision if the Act were extended to England; but he thought it would be dangerous to leave the matter as it now stood, seeing that it would open the door to the exercise of private vindic-tiveness. As the Bill was simply for the

  781
  better protection of person and property in Ireland, it should be confined to Ireland; and if England was to be affected by it at all, the wisest course would be to extend it to the whole of Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. CALLANsaid he would be unable to support the Amendment if the clause was confined merely to treason or treason-felony, because he thought that with regard to those crimes, wherever committed, the Government should have the power of arrest. But as he saw the Irish Law Officers of the Crown in their place, he was anxious to hear a word from them by way of explanation. The words "wherever committed" referred to "treasonable practices;" but, although he had spent an hour and a-half that morning in reading the Criminal Law in reference to treason, he had not been able to find a definition of "treasonable practices." He certainly thought that before they were asked to entrust these extraordinary and exceptional powers to the Irish Executive, some explanation should be given of what was meant by "treasonable practices."
  MR. DALYasked if the Chief Secretary meant that an Irishman in England might commit treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, and yet as long as he remained in England, although the Government might be in a position to bring him to trial, where no intimidation could be brought to bear upon the witnesses, he was perfectly safe in England, and it was only when he got upon Irish soil that he would be liable to be arrested? He wished to have a clear definition from the Government of what they meant by the words "wherever committed." The manner in which such legislation was pressed forward was one of the reasons which induced the Irish people to despair of getting justice from the Imperial Parliament. He thought, however, that he was entitled to have an answer to this Question—Did it mean that if the Government were in possession of information as to incitement to treason committed in Great Britain, America, or any other part of the world, where there could be no intimidation of witnesses, and no difficulty in the way of bringing the case to trial, the person committing the offence would be perfectly safe and protected until he came upon Irish soil?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Bill had been drawn with great care, and it was considered necessary to insert the word "wherever," so that the clause should include all offences of this nature where-ever they might have been committed. The Bill empowered the authorities in Ireland to arrest a man even although his treasonable offence had been committed out of the country. Any person who had committed an overt act of treason anywhere might be arrested if found in Ireland.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked what treasonable practices meant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that treasonable practices would include all attempts at treason which might not amount to actual treason. He believed that the words "treasonable practices" had been inserted in these Acts ever since 1688.
  MR. LEAMYwas sorry that the Attorney General for Ireland, when he stated that the Bill had been prepared by the Government with the utmost care and anxiety,' had not been able to give a better definition of the term "treasonable practices." By this Bill they were going back to the days of Edward III., when there was such a thing as constructive treason. It was now proposed to deprive the people of Ireland of their liberties, without defining what crime was meant by treasonable practices. Nobody at present could could tell what treasonable practices wore. They knew what high treason was, and what treason-felony was; but they were altogether unable to tell what was included under the head of "treasonable practices."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee have passed the words "treasonable practices," and are now upon the word "wherever."
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was aware that the Committee were dealing with the word "wherever;" but it must be taken in conjunction with the context. They were about to pass a clause which empowered the Irish Executive to arrest persons guilty of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, wherever committed, and he thought he had a right to know what was meant by these offences, and what the particular acts were that would justify the arrest of a man. It

  783
  was quite possible that, under this Act, a man might be arrested in Ireland for doing that which was perfectly legal for him to do in England, but which, under this measure, it would not be legal for him to do in Ireland, as it would come under the head of "treasonable practices." What he desired to know, for instance, was whether it would be possible to arrest his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for a speech he might have made before the American Congress? How were they to know whether that was a treasonable practice or not? The question was whether the House was justified in giving to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary power to arrest a man against whom there was a reasonable suspicion of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, wherever committed, until they knew what was really designed. They knew perfectly well what treason and treason-felony meant; but it was possible that, by including "treasonable practices," they might confer on the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Executive powers which were never dreamt of.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already stated that the time for discussing treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, was when those words wore before the Committee. The Committee have now passed those words, and the hon. Member, in discussing the meaning of the words "treasonable practices," is going beyond the Question before the Committee.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he objected to the insertion of the words "wherever committed," and he respectfully submitted that when they were conferring exceptional powers upon the Lord Lieutenant they had a right to define clearly what those powers were. If a man was guilty of treason in England, or treason-felony, or treasonable practices, the ordinary law in England was powerful enough to deal with him. If it were an Irishman, so acting in England, they might rest sure that he would be dealt with without fear, favour, or affection. Under those circumstances, he had a right to ask what the offences were, the commission of which outside the Kingdom, would give the Lord Lieutenant the power of arresting the man who was charged with committing it. The Chief Secretary seemed to infer
  784
  that it was a different thing to allow a man to commit treasonable offences in England with impunity, and then to allow him to be at largo if he happened to cross over into Ireland. The moment he reached Ireland he was to be arrested, and, in that case, he would be arrested for acts not committed in Ireland but in England. What he wished to understand clearly was whether so long as a man remained in England he was free to be guilty of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, and permitted to conspire even with persons in Ireland for treasonable objects without fear of arrest? If not, then he contended that the law as it stood was sufficient in England to deal with such a man, and that there was no necessity for creating a fresh offence in case the offender went to Ireland.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he had failed to gather from the Government what was the precise object of this part of the clause. Suppose that a man had commtted in England some small offence which came under the category of "treasonable practices;" but the Government abstained from prosecutive: him there, where he would be sure of a fair trial and might probably be acquitted by an English jury. If such a man went to Ireland, was he to be, under this Act, liable to be arrested for the offence he was supposed to have committed in England? If that was to be so, he should not only vote for the Amendment, but he hoped that every English Member would take a similar course.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAquite understood that the point the Committee had now arrived at did not refer to "treasonable practices," but to the phrase "wherever committed," and it would depend upon the meaning attributed to that phrase in conjunction with the other provisions of the clause, whether it ought to be inserted in the Bill or not. His own opinion was that the measure would be just as effectual without those words. He would leave upon the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive Government the responsibility of saying what the treasonable practices were that would justify an arrest; but the suspicion of treasonable practices committed anywhere was so indefinite that it would cover anything. Seeing that the expression "treasonable practices"

  785
  was so very vague, although it had been agreed to already, he hoped some attempt would be made to give a clear definition of it, rather than adopt the words "wherever committed."
  MR. M'COANremarked, that in objecting to the clause he would not hark back upon the phrase "treasonable practices," except in conjunction with the words "wherever committed." So far as he was aware, "treasonable practices" formed a crime hitherto unknown to the English Law. He challenged contradiction to that assertion. Within his knowledge no indictment had ever been framed for such a crime in England, and no man had ever been convicted of it. In, fact it was not a crime at all; and in the name of justice and fair play why should they make that a crime in Ireland which was not a crime in England?["Question !"] He was speaking strictly to the Question, as the hon. Member who interrupted would discover if he had the intelligence to follow him (Mr. M'Coan) in the discussion. It was sought by this clause to make that which was not an offence in England, and for which a man could not be arrested under the existing law in England, a crime in Ireland. He thought the power of the Government would be sufficiently extensive in Ireland, even if this word were excluded from the clause. Let the Government arrest a man if they liked for treason or treason-felony, wherever committed; but they ought not to be allowed to make that an offence in Ireland which was not an offence in England.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that hon. Members opposite were mistaken in supposing that "treasonable practices" were not indictable in England. A treasonable practice meant treason, treason-felony, or an attempt to commit either the one or the other.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 45: Majority 189.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to move, in page 1, line 9, after the first word "committed," the insertion of the words, "against the provisions of any statute now existing." He was most anxious that the time of the Committee should not be unnecessarily taken
  786
  up, and if the Government would signify assent to the insertion of these words he should resume his seat at once. The Attorney General for Ireland intimated some time ago that treasonable practices constituted a crime already well known to the law, and, if that were so, there could be no objection to the proposed Amendment. His object was to amend the clause, so that it would run "or treasonable practices, wherever committed, against the provisions of any statute now existing." Now that explicitly raised the question, whether there was not, under cover of this Bill, an attempt to coin a new crime utterly unknown to the law? If the Government meant by treasonable practices any crime known to the law at present as against any statute now in existence, he should not move the Amendment; but he could not find in the records of the Criminal Law that any man had been indicted for treasonable practices. Any treason was treason—that was to say, it was either treason or treason-felony—and as to telling the House there was such a thing as an accessory to treason, the Attorney General for Ireland knew that there could be no accessory, inasmuch as all were principals. There were in the clause important phrases and charges unknown to the Law of England, the introduction of which for the first time into the present Bill would lead to serious consequences hereafter. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Members might not at that moment be in the humour to listen to that argument, but they would some day acknowledge its truth. He protested against this manufacture of new offences. If Her Majesty's Government, while objecting to the terms employed in his Amendment, said that treasonable practices were already within the law, let them express it in phraseology of their own, because he only desired that offences against the present law should lie under the phrase which he wished to amend. He objected that in a Bill conferring such extraordinary powers as the present, loose phrases should be admitted. It was not so much a question what were the treasonable practices, as what would be called treasonable practices by the policeman. It had once occurred that a policeman had brought up a man on the charge of being "obnoxious to the authorities" in his own district. Perhaps treasonable practices were con-

  787
  stituted by whistling in the streets in the presence of a magistrate.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the term treasonable practices had already been discussed, and the hon. and learned Member must now confine himself to the Amendment he was about to move.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwas now contending that the treasonable practices should be known to the Statute Law, and, therefore, he was entitled to reason upon them in this sense as opposed to what might be considered treasonable practices in the mind of a village policeman. What were treasonable practices, unless those known to the law? And what would constitute treasonable practices not against the provisions of any statute now existing? He had alluded to a case that had happened in Ireland, of a boy brought up on a charge of whistling in the streets in the presence of a magistrate; and such were the offences which would, under the loose phraseology of the clause, be punishable in Ireland as treasonable practices unknown to the law. The House would remember the story of the prisoner who was sent to the punishment cells on bread and water, because he would not register himself as a Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian. Anything was possible in Ireland, and he would not trust Her Majesty's Government with the powers they asked for without the safeguard contained in the words of his Amendment. Let the Government, in their own phraseology, say they meant a crime known to the law, or he and his hon. Friends could not allow the clause to pass which would enable them to send to gaol for 18 months a person suspected of treasonable practices.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 9, after the first word "committed," to insert the words "against the provisions of any statutes now existing."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say that he regretted Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath. There was one fatal objection to it, for the hon. and learned Gentleman would know that attempts to commit crime were in themselves mis-
  788
  demeanours at Common Law. It was quite true that some misdemeanours had been made statutory offences also, for the purpose of inflicting appropriate punishment. The Government would be stultifying themselves by agreeing to the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY TYLERregretted to contend, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), who had charged Her Majesty's Government with inventing in the Pill new offences, that there had, on the other hand, been new crimes invented in Ireland that had not been specially dealt with in the Pill before the Committee; and, therefore, he suggested that instead of adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, the Committee should insert words that would deal with the new crimes to which he referred.
  DR. COMMINSthought the Attorney General for Ireland had mistaken the drift of his hon. and learned Friend's argument. He seemed to suppose that unless the words "treasonable practices" were introduced, that certain offences would escape the punishment proposed by this Bill. Now, no person could be accessory in a case of treason without being guilty of treason and liable to prosecution therefore. But the Attorney General for Ireland suggested that as they had the crime of treason-felony in the Bill, there might be accessories to it. He (Dr. Commins) contended that it was utterly unreasonable to include the term "treasonable practices," in order to provide for accidents; and he would repeat that if such a crime was to be found in the statutes, there had never been for it any indictment, trial, or conviction in England. It was provided that every offence must be defined by a certain Act; and in view of the necessity of confining the application of the Bill to things not merely displeasing to policemen and magistrates, he would support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath.
  MR. LEAMYstrongly supported the Amendment before the Committee, on the ground that if the term "treasonable practices" were left without the controlling words sought to be introduced, its vagueness would leave it very doubtful what would constitute the offence. They had heard the Attorney General for Ireland say it was an offence

  789
  at Common Law; but he (Mr. Leamy) found that under the ancient Common Law there was great latitude left to the Judges to determine what constituted high treason. And he submitted that unless the controlling words of his hon. and learned Friend wore inserted in the clause, the Committee would, in the words of Blackstone—
  "Enable those having the administration of Executive powers in Ireland to raise up by force an offence into the crime of treasonable practices which had never been considered to be such."
  The Statute of Edward IV. was made to determine the offence of high treason. But it was impossible to know what constituted treasonable practices. He and his hon. Friends said there was no statute which defined them—that no statute enacted in the days of the most despotic Kings which made offences of a treasonable character. Those statutes always mentioned some specific act, and defined it as contrary to the law or peace of the Realm. But now it would be impossible for any man in Ireland to know whether he was guilty of an offence which would place him within the exceptional powers of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant might doom it a treasonable practice to march in procession; but the Irish people would not know whether it was so or not. If there was in existence any Act of Parliament which so defined marching in procession, with a green banner displaying a harp, the Irish people ought to be made acquainted with it. On the other hand, if there was no such statute, he asked, would or would not that act be a treasonable practice? Some definition of this crime ought to be given; for it was a well-known legal maxim that every man was supposed to know the law, and that ignorance of the law would excuse no man. But, surely, the vague language of the Bill ought to excuse any man? In his own city some years ago, under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, four or five boys were marching through the streets, one of them playing a concertina; the words "right wheel" were heard, and the lads were sent before the magistrates and committed to gaol. Therefore he wished to know how "the Lord Lieutenant could decide whether any particular act constituted a treasonable practice? It was out of the power of the Lord
  790
  Lieutenant to decide whether a man was guilty of treason-felony, because he would have the assistance of existing Acts of Parliament. There could be nothing more dangerous than that Penal Laws, which struck at the Constitutional liberty of the subject, should be loosely worded, and that there should be room for despotic and prejudiced men to use such laws to the detriment of individuals and the community at large. For his own part, he did not trust the men who would have to administer these Executive powers—and, in saying that, he did not mean either the Lord Lieutenant or his Chief Secretary, but the men who would necessarily be entrusted by them with the powers in question. He well knew that many men in Ireland would exercise those powers hardly; for the men placed in authority there were opposed to the people against whom those powers would be exercised by birth, prejudice, and by all their surroundings. Those persons might think they used those powers honestly in putting down public meetings. And that, again, showed the necessity of accurately defining the terms of the Bill. Her Majesty's Government asked for powers for the Lord Lieutenant to punish men concerned in certain outrages. Everyone knew what an outrage meant, and a man could avoid committing one, and need not, therefore, be sent to prison; on the other hand, a man might be guilty of what the Lord Lieutenant might hold to be a treasonable practice, without knowing it. Therefore, he urged that the people should have it defined to them how far they might go.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the Committee that, under cover of this Amendment, they were discussing words already passed; and he must urge upon hon. '[Members strictly to confine their observations to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath. No Motion had been made for the omission of the words "treasonable practices" when they were properly the subject of discussion.
  MR. LEAMYpointed out that in supporting the controlling words sought to be introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Meath, it was absolutely necessary to connect them with the passage they were intended to control, and, therefore, he submitted he was perfectly in Order.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORhad listened very carefully to the reply of the Attorney General for Ireland, which for the moment had appeared to him perfectly conclusive, with regard to some of the objections of the hon, and learned Member for Meath. But, upon examination, he found the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be this. If they put in the words of the Amendment they would exclude some of the offences which the Bill was intended to reach, because a number of offences which they wished to make punishable under this Act were of the nature of misdemeanours. That, he thought, was a fair statement of his argument. Now, he challenged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to go through the Return, and give from it any offence which was not punishable under the Statute Law; and if there were no offence in the Agrarian Returns punishable by Common Law, and not by Statute Law, he asked what objection there could be to inserting the words of the Amendment? He understood that an attempt at crime was in the nature of misdemeanour, and not of felony; but was not every serious attempt at crime a felony? The words of limitation were a limitation of all the words that preceded it; and he submitted that he was in Order in showing how those words would affect the crimes of treason, treason-felony, and treasonable practices. There fore, keeping himself within those narrow limits, he should draw the serious attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the abuses of the Act which might take place, unless the controlling words of the hon. and learned Member for Meath were applied. The Chief Secretary for Ireland knew perfectly well that he would be unable always to exercise a controlling power over the application of this Act, and he must also know that hon. Members could not agree to the passing of Acts, simply upon their knowledge of his desires and good wishes. He and his hon. Friends were bound to assume that the right hon. Gentleman intended to push the application of the Act to the fullest possible extent. They must deal with the right hon. Gentleman, in giving him such powers, as if he were a person whose disposition was to make the most cruel and tyrannical use of them which the law permitted. He brought that under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman
  792
  to show what his subordinates would do in spite of him; and he found, before the Act had become law, an instance of the arbitrary exercise of the power given to magistrates under cover of words similar to those under discussion. A young gentleman of Loughrea, named Hugon, was sentenced recently to three months' imprisonment for no other crime, as far as he could discover, than that of having announced his preference for a Ropublic as against a Monarchical form of government. Was it not open to a man in Ireland to express a speculative opinion in favour of a Republic? It was in England; and he thought he knew hon. Members of the House, and who were occupants of the Treasury Bench, who, if they went to Loughrea, might be served as his friend Hugon was. There was a time in Ireland when, under a similar Act, it was dangerous to express even by habiliments what were supposed to be national principles.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The illustrations which the hon. Member has brought forward have not much bearing on Statute Law or even Common Law. I hope the hon. Member will take the hint that the Amendment must be closely spoken to.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was endeavouring to show what was the effect of a loosely-worded Act of Parliament; but he would not pursue that point. He thought it would be better to insert the words "Statute Law," because they would cover, not only every offence, but every serious attempt at offence. But if the Committee thought not, he should be quite willing to put in the words"every offence committed under Statute Law."
  MR. BIGGARthought the Government was disposed to settle the question by what he would call mob law. The Attorney General for Ireland had laid down the doctrine that the Government should refuse to agree to any Amendment, on the ground that the Bill had been carefully considered. That doctrine, if carried out, was in favour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but it seemed to him that the argument with regard to the proposed Amendment was unanswerable, that some words should be inserted defining the alleged offence. It had been argued that there was no such offence known in law; and on the other side it was argued that the expression

  793
  objected to appeared in other Acts of Parliament, but that, at the same time, it was desirable that alleged offences should be defined to the extent of Statute Law. They in Ireland did not even have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to whether or not they were liable to punishment; but if they were to be at the mercy of what any responsible or irresponsible person might consider a treasonable practice, they could not possibly take part in any political affair, however small, without being suspected of committing an offence. It bad been held that the Land League Courts were offences. That might or might not be the case; but if it was so, then it would be an offence to be seen going into a room in which a Land Court was to be held—and that even without proof that a Court was about to be held, for all that was required was "reasonable suspicion" that a Court was to be held. Thus, any person going into the particular room, or even into the house, or any person connected, in the slightest degree, with the Court being held, would be guilty of treasonable practices. He thought the Government were perfectly unreasonable in their objection to that particular Amendment, for it was not fair or reasonable that people should be punished for the supposed infringement of anything beyond Statute Law. That thing, Common Law, seemed to him perfectly absurd, for it depended, not on what was the law, but on any Judge's declaration of his opinion as to what the law ought to be.
  MR. WARTONinformed the Committee, that in the Statute 26 George IV. chap. 6, the words were "treasonable and seditious practices."
  MR. FINIGANscarcely thought that the fact that the words in question occurred in all previous statutes was a reason which a Liberal Government should adduce. It would come with a bad grace from that side of the blouse; and he thought the Government should give a sound and real reason, and not the sham reason that because the words occurred in other Acts of Parliament, therefore they should be maintained. It would be very hard indeed for any Member of the House to go to Ireland, if he agreed with the principles of the Land League, and ask the people of Ireland to organize in Constitutional form, when there was the risk of arrest
  794
  under the words of the clause as it stood. Under some circumstances in Ireland, people excited by hunger and famine and all their concomitant circumstances, would do things which they would never dream of under a more favourable state of things; and he thought the words proposed to be left out in the Bill were very dangerous and ought not to be left in, while those proposed to be inserted were sound and legal in principle and in practice. He pressed the Government to accept the Amendment, because the difficulty was to find out for what crime a man might be arrested, no proof being required, only reasonable suspicion that he had been guilty of high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices. He had no sympathy with any of those offences; but he thought the House ought to lay down some definition, and that they could do by adopting the words proposed. They would then have some definite ground to go upon; and he hoped the Government would either give some better reason for retaining the words in the clause than old precedents, or accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 221: Majority 176.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
  DR. COMMINSproposed, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from "of" to "order" in line 12, and to insert the words—
  "Any agrarian offence being murder, manslaughter, firing at the person, aggravated assault, assault endangering life, assault on a bailiff or process-server, incendiary fire or arson, taking or holding forcible possession, killing, cutting, or maiming cattle, levying contributions, demand or robbery of arms, administering unlawful oaths, intimidation otherwise than by threatening letters or notices, attacking houses, firing into dwellings, or assault on the police."
  One reason why he made this proposal was that the offences described were well known, well defined, and thoroughly defined; they were offences with which the Courts and the lawyers and the people of Ireland were thoroughly acquainted. No person would fail to understand what those offences were when so described; every person would then know what to avoid, and, by knowing the law, would be able to rule and guide his conduct. But what

  795
  would any person understand by the words he proposed to have deleted? Those words would cover anything that was an offence, no matter what the offence might be; they would, in fact, allow suspicion of any kind to be used in justification of any proceedings through which a man might be imprisoned for 18 months. The whole thing was inartistic. They had heard that the Bill had been carefully drawn; but, if so, then it must have been carefully drawn to introduce the greatest amount of un-definableness. The words were—
  "Any crime punishable by law committed in a prescribed district, being an act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order."
  That was a most extraordinary description of offences or suspected offences. He used so be under the impression, and he was so still, and until he heard something to the contrary very explicit he should remain under the impression, that nothing could be held punishable by law except something that interfered with the maintenance of law and order. He never knew any other test of crime, except that the act proscribed by law as a crime and punishable was an act which tended to violence or intimidation, or tended to disturb law and order. There was no other definition that could be given. An offence, however trifling, which should be visited by the infliction of a fine of 1s., might, by the constructive ingenuity of a policeman or a magistrate—for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would, as a rule, not be able to look into all cases—be construed to be an offence which was to be dealt with under the provisions of that Act. Nearly all criminal offences were supposed to imply an assault; in fact, no offence was punishable unless it was an assault at Common Law. It must be what Blackstone called "the unlawful sitting upon some person. "Now, every assault was an act of violence; so that in the Bill, as it stood, every offence, no matter what it might be, was included. The whole range of criminal offences might be brought under it. If a magistrate chose to suspect any person of any crime, of whatever nature, he could proceed against the alleged offender under that statute. Nor did the mischief end there. The Bill said—"Any act, being
  796
  an act of violence or intimidation. "An act of intimidation might be performed without a single movement of the body. The mere standing in a particular part of the street might be so. For instance, under the Masters' and Servants' Act, it was punishable for a man to stand opposite a workshop or in the road where persons passed to their work. And, further, there might be intimidation in the act of whistling, which had been alluded to already, whore such whistling had had the effect of frightening a policeman or a process-server. Almost any possible act might, in fact, be construed into one of intimidation, and so come under the provisions of the Bill, and the offender might be punished for having committed a breach of the peace. So that, if that clause were to be construed in a large sense, it would certainly tend to the violation of law and order rather than the reverse. Such a wording as that of the present clause would leave the people exposed to the officious malevolence of a policeman, or the offended pride of a magistrate. Every person who was actuated by an evil motive might bring anyone under the Act, provided he only obtained the services of a policeman or magistrate. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could himself look into all the cases, it would be different; but the working of the Act must, of necessity, be left in the hands of policemen, magistrates, and informers. He submitted that they were about to introduce an intolerable system into a civilized country. When law ruled in any country, one of the greatest protections was that of protection to life and property. They were about to destroy that; for, by such a clause as that, life would not be worth living. No doubt, Ireland was not in so good a state as it ought to be; but if they passed that clause in its present form, matters would become a thousand times worse. It was only in the certainty of the Criminal Law, when the offences were strictly defined, so that the people knew what to avoid, and the punishment that would be incurred by a breach, that there was anything like proper liberty in any country. By introducing the words which he proposed, they would prevent the exercise of arbitrary power, and get some little guarantee that arbitrary imprisonment would not be resorted to under the provisions of the Act. No

  797
  one knew what to avoid with the clause in its present form; and, therefore, it required amendment. No matter what was intended, it was capable of covering a power more arbitrary than any that was exercised in China, Persia, or Russia. Therefore, he must impress upon the Government the desirability of accepting the Amendment, as it would leave power in the hands of the authorities wide enough and amply sufficient to suppress offences against law and order. There appeared to be no reason why the Government should wish to have the power of manufacturing offences upon any occasion which might arise. If they desired what they proposed—namely, simply to pass a measure so as to put an end to a state of things which the existing law was supposed not to be capable of doing, the clause, as he proposed to amend it, would be quite sufficient for the purpose. Why did they want to have any hidden embers? Let the people see what their rights were, and what were the rights of their rulers, because the rulers should be restricted to the same rights as they themselves had. Let them be able to provide against offences. He was fully of opinion that the people of Ireland were as peaceable and law-abiding as any other nation, if they only knew what the law was by which they were governed. Let them not hang the law so high that nobody could read it, nor use words that might be held to mean anything. He implored the Committee, in conclusion, to accept the Amendment which he then begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word "of," to the word "order," in line 12, and insert the words "any agrarian offence being murder, manslaughter, firing at the person, aggravated assault, assault endangering life, assault on a bailiff or process-server, incendiary fire or arson, taking or holding forcible possession, killing, cutting, or maiming cattle, levying contributions, demand or robbery of arms, administering unlawful oaths, intimidation otherwise than by threatening letters or notices, attacking houses, firing into dwellings, or assault on the police."—(Dr. Gommins.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'crime punishable by law committed in a prescribed district being an act of violence,' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, I regret
  798
  that we cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to consider it a small one; but it would appear to be one of very considerable extent. The words which he proposes to strike out are those which describe a class of crimes for which a man may be arrested. There can be no difficulty in applying the clause, for it distinctly states that the act, of the commission of which the man is suspected, must be a crime now punishable by law. It must be an act of violence or intimidation, and (not or) of a character which tends to disturb law and order. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to leave out of the clause altogether words which refer to a large class of crimes, such as those of inciting to the commission of crime. He deliberately omits from the clause a reference to those persons who have not the courage to commit the crimes, but incite others to do so. But, further, it seems to me that there is one fatal objection to the Amendment, apart from anything else, and that is that he confines it simply to the cases of agrarian crimes. If a murder was not agrarian—suppose, for example, the killing of a policeman in the streets of Dublin by some Fenian conspirators, as has happened—it could not be brought under the Act. It is quite true that the unhappy condition of things in Ireland has arisen out of agrarian causes; but it has extended far beyond those borders, and it is, therefore, necessary for the Government to seek special legislation for preventing crime, whether agrarian or non-agrarian. The Amendment runs thus—"Any agrarian offence being murder, &c." Therefore, no matter how serious the offence, or how much the peace of the community may be endangered, unless the Government are satisfied that its origin is agrarian, they could not proceed against it under that Bill. Moreover, it is not possible to accept the limitation that only the actual perpetrators should be brought within the scope of the Act. It is quite as necessary also to include accessories. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman meant only to exclude threatening letters; but, as the Amendment runs, it seemed also to exclude firing into houses. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend to exclude that class of crime. As regards threatening letters also, my opinion is that they are about the most mis-

  799
  chievous form of intimidation that can be used—the most effective and the most cowardly—and, certainly, the Government are not disposed to accept any form of the clause which would exclude the power of proceeding against those who were suspected of manufacturing those terrorizing documents. We cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. T.P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had misunderstood his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. He did include the offence of firing into houses among acts of intimidation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It appears to me that the Amendment would not include that offence. But I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman credit for not intending to omit it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend had included in his Amendment every form of intimidation, with the exception of threatening letters. He was sorry to hear the tone in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Amendment. It was a very reasonable one, and had been met with a distinct refusal from the Treasury Bench. He thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was making a mistake if he supposed that the Bill would not be more delayed if no Amendments were accepted than if the Government gave way upon some points. The real meaning of the Amendment was to exclude from the operation of the Act all offences except those against the person and serious ones against property. The justification for the Amendment was that the Returns which had been presented by the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague the Chief Secretary were full of the most trivial cases. Some were "maliciously burning down haycoeks," "breaking panes of glass," and "spilling a barrel oftar." According to that Act, a man could be imprisoned for 18 months for any such offence as that, an offence which would be mot in this country by a fine of 2s. 6d. or '18 hours' imprisonment. He was quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give such a punishment for so trivial an offence; but they must take the right hon. and learned Gentleman at his worst, and not at his best, where the liberty of a people
  800
  was concerned, and must have regard to the persons by whom the law would be administered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could not consent to confine the operation of the Act to agrarian offences. But was it not to meet those that the Bill was introduced? Was it not the case that agrarian offences were so different from ordinary ones that they could not get witnesses nor juries to try them; and that if they could get juries, they could not obtain a conviction? The fact was, that whereas ordinary non-agrarian offences showed a considerable proportion of convictions to offences, agrarian offences showed a considerable disproportion. Then why not exclude those offences on which they could already obtain convictions '? The right hon. Gentleman made one observation which, if made earlier, would, he thought, have thrown a good deal of light upon the Bill. He said that a certain organization was extending its operations from agrarian to non-agrarian crime. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove that. A great deal of what was termed agrarian crime in the Returns was not so at all. It was due to the deficiency of employment, especially in Galway and Mayo; but it was not true to say that crime was extending from agrarian to non-agrarian offences. He had an Amendment on the Paper, to which he would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the present one were not accepted, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might be able to see his way to accepting his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) Amendment, which referred specially to the offences of attacking houses and firing: into dwellings. He hoped, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to accept the present Amendment, as it was more comprehensive.
  MR. O'LONNELLsaid, he had listened to the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland, and it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position to-day contradicted that which he had assumed on almost every previous stage of the Bill. If any conclusion was to be drawn from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, it was that the measure the Committee were asked to pass was intended to apply not merely to agrarian crime, but to every offence—that it was, in fact, to be a substitute for the entire

  801
  Criminal Law of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman expressly objected to drawing any distinction between agrarian murder and non-agrarian murder, and asked the House, in contradiction to all the statements made by the Government on every previous stage of the Bill, to believe that Irish juries drew no distinction between them, and that the ruffian who killed his wife, or the highway robber who added murder to robbery, would enjoy all the popular sympathy that was alleged to surround the assassin of an evicting landlord or agent. If any such monstrous statement had been made in support of the measure in the first instance, he did not believe that even the Liberal Party would have consented to the first reading. They had been told again and again on every side that there was the broadest possible distinction to be drawn between agrarian and non-agrarian murder; and the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had devoted their eloquence to the construction of special panegyrics and eulogies on the Irish people for that the process of the law in Ireland was infallible when non-agrarian crime was in question. For such a thing as non-agrarian murder, theft, or assault to pass without punishment was a thing incompatible with the very nature of the Irish peasantry; and it was only in the deplorable instance of agrarianism that there was any uncertainty about the punishment of an offender. The Attorney General for Ireland threw overboard all the most solemn assertions of his Chiefs, upon which they had obtained the consent of the House to the Bill so far as it had gone; and if there was any foundation for the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the measure would be a monstrous injustice to the mass of the people of Ireland, not merely from the point of view of public liberty, but from the point of view of the execution of the law. Instead of non-agrarian crime being punished by the Criminal Law, and severe imprisonment, or penal servitude, or the death penalty being awarded to offenders, it was to be punished by 18 months' imprisonment, the culprits being fed on good diet, and being treated as persons awaiting their trial. Such a thing as this would be a premium on the com-
  802
  mission of serious crimes, while persons suspected of lesser offences—owing to their liability to arrest without its being necessary to declare the nature of their offending—would be treated with extreme and undue severity. If the Attorney General for Ireland had stood up only to speak against time, being utterly regardless of what sort of argument he trotted out before the Committee, he could not have proceeded in a better manner; but if he had intended to defend the Bill, or to argue against the proposed Amendment, he could not have made a more feeble or self-contradictory speech. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that direct and express incitement to crime should be dealt with on the same level as serious crime; but the point was only trifling, as words to that effect could be retained in the Bill without detracting from the utility of the Amendment, as pointing out crimes of a specific nature. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be determined to show how, within a certain space of time, he could crowd the largest possible amount of fallacies in opposition to the Irish Party in the House. He had told them that the agrarian organization was extending to non-agrarian cases; and if this were true, it would destroy the whole raison d'etre of that organization. Its popularity was owing to the fact that its sole object was to enable the people to prevent a certain class of persons from injuring their property; but, as a matter of fact, the more the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded in this matter the more hopelessly he became involved in the quagmire in which he asked the Committee to embark along with him. He did not bring forward a single proof in support of his contention that the Land League was now becoming a League for defrauding everybody—the farmers, it was to be presumed, included—but, in default of proof, he threw the whole blame on human nature, for he said that it was the nature of great organizations, when once they felt their power, to extend their operations to everything. On the strength of this argument, then, the Government might as well extend their Bill to every organization in the United Kingdom, because it was only in human nature that they should travel outside their proper sphere. If no more serious arguments could be brought against the

  803
  Amendment than those advanced by the Attorney General for Ireland, the Committee would surely go some length in the direction of supporting the proposal. The Amendment could be rendered perfect by including amongst agrarian offences not only murder, but direct incitement to the commission of murder. In this form it ought to be acceptable to the Government, for it would arm them with all the power they required for putting down agrarian crime. The position taken up by the Irish Attorney General was really a reductio ad absurdum, such as had never before been seen, not only in this House, but in the pages of the Irish comic Press; and the right hon. Gentleman had cast ridicule on the case of his Chiefs and Leaders, by giving his authority to one of the most monstrous and indefensible propositions ever submitted to any Parliament or meeting.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought that if the Bill were carried as now drafted it would confer the most arbitrary power on those who had to administer the law. It would be impossible to frame any clause more indefinite in its scope, more far-reaching, and more calculated to give a perfectly irresponsible and despotic power to the Government; for the provision, as it stood, would enable them to arrest any person against whom they might choose to entertain what they might call "reasonable suspicion" of his having been directly or indirectly concerned in anything that might go to disturb the maintenance of law and order. Anyone engaged in a mere wrangle—a couple of fish-women on a Dublin quay, for instance—might be arrested under the Act, because they would be guilty of that which tended to disturb law and order. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was clear and explicit, and covered all the ground which they could be reasonably asked to allow the Government to cover with these exceptional powers. Parliament had legislated against intimidation in England; but the present measure was very different to English Acts—that dealing with trades' unions, for instance. In the "Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act," it was provided that whoever should be guilty of certain conduct for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any lawful act should be punished.
  804
  This conduct was described most carefully, and consisted of wrongfully or without authority using violence to or intimidating a person, his wife, or children, injuring his property, persistently following him about, hiding his tools, depriving him of them or hindering him in their use, watching or besetting the house or any other place in which he resided or carried on his business or happened to be, following him in a disorderly manner in or through any road or street. They would see how careful Parliament had been to provide safeguards to limit the power of those in authority to interfere with the liberty of the subject in England, in order not to injure the objects of trades' unions or leagues who sought to reason or expostulate with others, but did not go the length of intimidating. Persons who went to the house of an individual, or to the place where he worked or carried on his business, or happened to be near to the approach to such house or place in order to obtain information should not, according to the Act in question, be watching or besetting within the meaning of the section. Had the Government been as careful to guard the liberty of the subject in Ireland in this Bill, as a previous Government had been to guard the liberty of the subject in Ireland? No; and the Government were asking for the fullest and most indefinite powers under an Act which was to be interpreted by the Irish magistracy, the Irish police, and the Irish Establishment in Dublin Castle. The Act would put power into the hands of a body of landlords, who were now waiting to 'wreak their vengeance on their quondam serfs. Church-made law had been characterized as most objectionable, and this Dublin Castle-made law would be even more so—it would not be worth the name of law at all. It would be sacrificing the liberties of the people to the very class of men who had always treated them as serfs.
  MR. METGEsaid, the Government had let the cat out of the bag, when he told them the Bill was not only directed against agrarian crime, but ordinary crime. For a long time he (Mr. Metge) had suspected this. Panegyrics had been uttered on the purity and virtue of the Irish people in everything but those matters which affected the landlord; and it must be borne in mind

  805
  that the landlords were the class who had to administer the law, and that the first use they would make of this Bill would be to protect themselves. He looked upon the Amendment as of great importance, not so much as regarded the scheduling of the crimes, but because the words—
  "Inciting to an act of violence or intimidation and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order"—
  covered every possible phase of the land movement now going on in Ireland. If these words stood as they were, no one, in face of such a penalty, would dare to say a word in favour of the movement, and no one would endeavour to moderate those who identified themselves with the movement, because a person speaking on a Land League platform, however peaceful and law-abiding he might be, might have attributed to him words used by someone else, and so be brought within the category of "reasonably suspected." The right hon. and learned. Gentleman, in his contradictory speech, had stated that the Bill was not directed against the Land League; but he had gone on to say that crime had always dogged the steps of the organization. If that could be proved, why did not the Government strike boldly at the Land League, instead of endeavouring to get at it covertly by such a clause as this? If the Bill passed in its entirety, it seemed to him that public meetings were at an end in Ireland. Agitation must cease. No man would dare to stand up on a platform to support, in the most moderate manner, the principles he might have been sent to the House of Commons to advance. If such a law as this had been in force in Scotland last year, the present Ministry would not be sitting on the Treasury Bench, for every word uttered by them might have been taken as an incitement to an act of violence or intimidation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that two Amendments after this we come to that which deals with "inciting to violence;" therefore, the point cannot be discussed now.
  MR. METGEsaid, he would bow to the ruling of the Chair; but, as he understood the present Amendment, it was to leave out all the words from "of" to "order."
  THE CHAIRMAN: If I put that, I should shut out all the hon. Members who have Amendments to those words.
  MR. METGEsaid, if there had been any hon. Members present—and there hardly ever were when Irish questions were under discussion—he should have appealed to them to support his view of the question.
  MR. DALYregretted that the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, was not delivered at an earlier period, for he had stated that it would be necessary under the Bill to punish crimes other than agrarian. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that that meant that a person in Ireland reasonably suspected of a murder would be cast into prison for 18 months without any opportunity of bringing forward his witnesses? According to the newspapers, a young officer had recently been found dead at Chatham, and the circumstances were such that it was probable he had met his death at the hands of a murderer. A revolver was found, with five chambers loaded and one empty; but the weapon was picked up such a distance from the body as hardly to justify the theory of suicide. The people in the house about the time the sad affair happened were Sergeant Gallagher, who had come to take in a uniform, and several female servants; and, without for a moment suggesting that any of these were guilty of murder, he would put it that they might be reasonably suspected. These people, then, if such a Bill as this were in force in England, might be arrested and cast into prison for 18 months without trial or opportunity of bringing forward witnesses to prove their innocence. He had no faith in Parliamentary agitation. Since he had been in the House of Commons, he had lost his faith in it; but he could not help thinking enough of the common sense and common honesty of hon. Members above and below the Gangway on the Ministerial side to believe that if the ideas of the Attorney General for Ireland on this question had been earlier promulgated, they would have shrunk from that blind obedience with which they followed the Government into the Lobby. The principle of the Amendment was undeniably fair, as it pointed out the offences which a man might not commit, or which, having committed after a certain period, he would know he could be arrested for.

  807
  These controlling words would be found beneficial; but if they were to have the Act carried out under the direction, of the Attorney General, it would be better to end further controversy by inserting an Amendment to say that anyone who committed any act whatever could be arrested.
  MR. FINIGANthought that if the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), and the schedule of crimes which he had placed on the Paper, were fairly looked into, the Committee would see that Her Majesty's Government had a good opportunity afforded to them for showing that they were not animated by a feeling of Dictatorship or by the feeling of alarm which had been excited in England by their own announcement of crimes and outrages, and Fenian and other plots. It was a legal fiction that every man ought to know the law. Most men did know the ordinary law, although, perhaps, not from a legal point of view. They knew that certain crimes and immoral acts were prohibited by the law—that it was not right to murder a man, or to steal his property, or to intimidate him. But when, as was now the case, they were introducing a peculiar coercive law into Ireland which might be used in a despotic manner, it was only fair that they should define what were the acts beyond the ordinary Statute Law for which a man was made punishable. He thought this schedule of crime really covered everything that the Government and their supporters could desire to discountenance in Ireland. The schedule included any agrarian offence being murder. They all knew that if any man was arrested on reasonable suspicion for murder, that even after 18 months' detention he would be indicted, and a specific charge and evidence adduced against him. The same might be said of manslaughter, firing at the person, aggravated assaults, assaults endangering life, &c. He had not had the happiness of attending many Land League meetings in Ireland; but when this Bill had been passed he proposed to go over there for the purpose of agitating in a thoroughly Constitutional manner. He should certainly ask the people of Ireland to continue their Land League organization; but, at the same time, he had no wish or desire to incite anyone to the commission of crime, or
  808
  even to any act that would interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order. Probably he would only repeat some of the leading principles enunciated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but how was he to know whether, in repeating their strong Constitutional arguments, he might not be arrested and taken to prison on the suspicion of inciting to treasonable practices? The suspicion might emanate from a police-constable, or any other person, and on information sent to the authorities at Dublin Castle, who would know nothing of him except as an opponent—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member was not in the House when I explained that the Amendment only goes down to the words "act of violence" as they stand in the clause. It is not, therefore, in Order to discuss that part of the clause which will come before the Committee subsequently.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he was not in the House when the Chairman conveyed that intimation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether a Question having once been put from the Chair, it could be altered without the consent of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot have observed that, in order to protect subsequent Amendments, I only put from the Chair a certain number of words. This is a constant practice.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he was deprecating the arrest of a man for treasonable practices, and was asking for a definition of such treasonable practices as would be held to be inciting to acts of violence or intimidation. He had no ambition whatever to become a martyr in an Irish prison for 18 months; but as long as he believed he was advocating Constitutional principles, it was only fair that he should know the exact nature of the crime for which he would be liable to be taken into custody. He maintained that the Government, by the ordinary Statute Law, could preserve peace and order in Ireland without resorting to coercion at all; and if they would adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon, they would do something, although he admitted it was but very little, to assuage the bitterness of feeling which the Bill was certain to create throughout Ireland. At present they were proposing to give to the Irish

  809
  people too much law and too little justice.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had listened with great attention to the remarks of the Attorney General for Ireland, and the impression produced upon him by that speech was that Her Majesty's Government, in regard to this measure, were very much in the habit of shifting their ground from time to time. When the Chief Secretary introduced the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman based its necessity very much upon a list of agrarian crimes which he had prepared, and if it was not intended to deal with that class of offences, there was no necessity for the Bill at all. It had been stated over and over again that the total amount of crime in Ireland was exceedingly small, and crimes which were not of an agrarian character were not only very few indeed, but there was no difficulty in prosecuting the persons who committed them, and in obtaining a conviction. The whole weight of the case raised by the Government was that there existed in Ireland a sort of crime which, though not serious in the aggregate, was exceptional, and from its exceptional nature it was desirable to introduce and carry into effect a stringent and exceptional law. The learned Attorney General for Ireland said that owing to the proceedings of an organization, which he did not name, but which they were acquainted with, crimes of an agrarian character had latterly become prevalent, and had spread rapidly all over the country. But that was quite contrary to the information supplied by the statistics, because it appeared that instead of agrarian crimes increasing they were, at present, greatly falling off in number. One of the points of the Government case was the number of threatening letters that were sent. Now, a great number of those threatening letters were mere practical jokes, and it was at all times a difficult thing to prove handwriting. An instance of this occurred to himself only a few days ago at the Post Office in the Lobby of the House. The postmaster there had seen his (Mr. Biggar's) writing many times, and the other clay that gentleman handed to him a letter, which was not fully addressed, and asked him if it was not in his handwriting. It seemed to him to be in his own handwriting, and he, therefore, opened it, when he found
  810
  that it was a letter written by his hon. Friend who had moved the present Amendment. He mentioned this circumstance simply to show that where a question of handwriting was involved the evidence was most uncertain, and it was almost impossible to got positive proof. He, therefore, thought the Government ought not to insist on asking for extraordinary powers in regard to the sending of threatening letters. If there was a real bonâ fide suspicion that a man had committed an offence, it might be justifiable to ask for extraordinary powers; but it was going too far to ask for such powers under a mere suspicion that a man might have done something that was, under ordinary circumstances, perfectly incapable of proof.
  MR. CALLANremarked, that the Attorney General for Ireland had objected to the phraseology of the Amendment on the ground that it was far-fetched. The Amendment certainly excepted threatening letters from coming under the purview of the Bill. The Attorney General for Ireland possessed a thorough knowledge of the English language, and was acquainted with the use of the disjunctive conjunction, particularly as it was used in a Dublin lease, which was a splendidly-drawn evasion of the Land Act. He (Mr. Callan) did not think that a man should be liable to 18 months' imprisonment without trial on the mere suspicion of having sent a threatening letter. The detection of handwriting was a matter upon which there was the greatest diversity of opinion, even among experts. The man was a coward who would send a threatening letter. He had himself received threatening letters, even in that House; but was he, on a mere suspicion conveyed to a detective, as to the writer, to have a particular man arrested? He only wished in some cases that he could discover the writer, not in order to denounce him to a detective, but that he might inflict summary punishment upon him for his cowardly act. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon had been verbally criticized; but no substantial objection had been raised to the real gist of the Amendment. Her Majesty's Government were, of course, enamoured of their own handiwork; but, as far as he was concerned, he would infinitely prefer the proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 40: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,in rising to move, in page 1, line 10, after the word "violence," to insert the words "against the person," said, the arguments in favour of his Amendment were very obvious, and, therefore, he trusted that it would meet with the acceptance of Her Majesty's Government. As the words which he sought to introduce implied, his object was to limit the operation of the Act to deeds of violence against the person. He did not think, although, of course, the protection of property was a most essential point, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider acts committed against that were alone sufficient to justify him in bringing in a Bill to abridge the liberties of the Irish people. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him some encouragement that he would be met halfway, he would be disposed to add to the clause two or three of the most serious offences against property. Still, he wished the Bill to simply be a protection against violence to the person. The right hon. Gentleman knew that a serious offence against property was easily traced, and that the offender, as a rule, received very little sympathy from others. Therefore, he thought that exceptional legislation in such cases was quite unnecessary. One reason for thinking that the Amendment was very necessary was that there was already an idea prevalent in Ireland that the object of the Bill was to leave one class of property there unprotected for the purpose of protecting another class.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 10, after the word "violence," to insert the words" against the person."—(Mr. T P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANurged the necessity, in an Act so severe as this, that there should be no possible ground of misconception of the meaning of the Legislature in passing it. His hon. Friend's object in proposing the Amendment before the Committee was that the operation of the Bill might be confined to acts of violence against the person.
  812
  Now, an act of violence against property under the lose phraseology of the Bill would be the breaking of a pane of glass such as was mentioned in the Blue Book, and the throwing of the pebble which broke the glass would be an act of violence also. Was it, he asked, contended that the House of Commons should waste 15 minutes in dividing upon the question whether the Government meant or did not mean that breaking windows, or some act against the person, should remain the object of the Bill? If Her Majesty's Government would pass an Act of this kind confessedly outside every Act of Parliament in existence, it was the duty of the Representatives of the people against whom it was directed to take care that the phraseology should be precise, clear, and plain; and inasmuch as this Bill did not take the ordinary statutes for models or precedents, so they would not be content unless they had something in the shape of a safeguard to limit or define its application. He was aware that Her Majesty's Government classified as an outrage the breaking of a pane of glass in the widow Mulligan's cabin, and he would like to know what he would classify as an act of violence when the Bill was put in force? Let Her Majesty's Government say what they meant by an act of violence. If they meant what their supporters thought they meant, all he wanted was to put words in the Bill which would pin them to that meaning. But it was clear they did not want to be pinned by any words at all. There was scarcely a phrase in the Bill that was not vague, loose, dangerous, and tyrannical, and inserted in order, under its powers, to give even wider scope to magisterial and police application of it than would appear on the face of the Bill. He would not go again into the whistling case; but it was well known what magistrates and policemen would do in the way of suspecting an act of violence. Her Majesty's Government, having refused to limit the Bill by any statute now in force, he and his hon. Friends were bound to pursue their efforts upon every line and dangerous phrase which it contained, in order to provide their people at home with something like protection against its unjust application. Supposing, even, that the previous Amendment had been conceded, he feared it would be of little

  813
  use, because no one could tell whether the Lord Lieutenant would be bound by those limitations in its application. Hon. Members would never be told on what grounds any man was arrested under this Bill. The responsibility, therefore, of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant was unreal, and Parliament would never know in what way the extraordinary powers it was now asked to vest in those Officials were used. Of course, a Bill might be passed in this way—"Resolved that the Lord Lieutenant may do as he likes." And it would, in this case, amount to the same tiling, for no one would be allowed to know how the Bill had been applied—whether to acts of violence against the person or against property. If anyone asked the Chief Secretary, next Session, whether it was for an act of violence against property or against the person, that, say Johnson, had been arrested in 1881, the reply would be that he could not disclose the facts. He would like to be shown a case in which, during the last 20 years, out of the hundreds of persons arrested in Ireland under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the Government had oven disclosed the charge against the suspected person. He would only add, in conclusion, that this was a measure which out-Bombaed King Bomba and out-Heroded the Czar of Russia in the despotism which it would enforce in Ireland.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it would seem that the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) believed himself to be discussing a previous part of the clause, because in the portion of the Bill before the Committee the limitation for which he contended existed, and the crime was described as punishable by law. It was, therefore, difficult to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken so much trouble in this matter, seeing that he had expressed his opinion that it would all be thrown away. The limitation sought to be introduced was one which the Government could not possibly accept. For his part, he should certainly regret that the House should accept this Amendment and limit the operation of the Bill to violence against the person, and to two or three offences against property which were very bad in themselves. He thought he had shown, in his opening statement, that the dread
  814
  of these offences against property was one of the most effective means in Ireland of intimidation, and of putting in force the unwritten law of the Land League in place of the law of the land. For that reason, Her Majesty's Government considered, if it was an offence at all, they should have it in their power to prevent people from intimidating persons in that manner. Of course, hon. Members who thought the Lord Lieutenant would allow any person to be arrested for breaking a pane of glass, and who voted against the second reading of the Bill, would also vote against the third reading; but Her Majesty's Government believed that the Lord Lieutenant would cause to be arrested such persons as it was necessary to arrest for the peace of the country. He had over and over again stated, in contradiction of what had been so frequently urged, that it was not the police or the magistrates in Ireland who would put this Act in force, and he did not think there was any use in doing so again. He might, however, repeat that its provisions would be put in force, not by the magistrates or the police, but by the Lord Lieutenant and himself, assisted by their responsible Advisers.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had referred to what had been done when the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India was at the Irish Office; but he scarcely thought the right hon. Gentleman knew what was done at that time, and that if he wanted to re-assure Irish Members he should not refer to what had happened when his right hon. Friend ruled their country. What had happened then? An unfortunate man, against whom no charge was brought, and by whom no crime was committed, was kept in prison for two years, and he was only released when an hon. Member (Mr. Roebuck) drew attention to the case, and expressed his indignation that a man, who had never known what his crime was, should have been kept in prison in that way. Unless a limitation such as that proposed was admitted there would be further cases of that kind, and so history would repeat itself

  815
  in Ireland; and he thought when the right hon. Gentleman referred to what was done during the rule of his right hon. Friend he should make himself better acquainted with the facts. The Chief Secretary had stated that it was not the police and the magistrates who would have to carry out the Act. Of course, they knew it was not the policeman who would sign the lettre de cachet which would send a man to prison; but it was the police who would give the magistrate information upon which he would act, and that was the chief reason why they opposed the clause. How did they know what would be an act of violence in the magistrate's opinion? He had brought forward a case of a magistrate who had expressed his hope that the people of Ireland would soon get powder and ball. That he considered a distinct act of violence, but the Chief Secretary did not remove him for that great act of violence; and if the Chief Secretary took that view of what was not an act of violence when committed by one of his own friends, it was hard to say what would be an act of violence when committed by some unfortunate Land Leaguer. He could not understand what was the objection of the Chief Secretary to the proposed Amendment; but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman, having stated that he would not consent to any verbal alteration of the Bill until the third reading, had forgotten that there was a Standing Order against any such proceeding at that stage. The result would be that Radical Members who had voted on the second reading, on the understanding that Amendments would be made at a subsequent stage, would be disappointed, and they would find that the object of the Chief Secretary was to get the Report stage of the Bill passed over. It was quite competent for the Government to carry on proceedings of that kind; but he submitted that it was unusual, and that in endeavouring to get the Report stage passed over, the Government were acting on false pretences.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not keeping to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Question was, whether the words "personal violence" should be inserted in the clause, and he was endeavouring to show the desira-
  816
  bility of inserting those words. If the clause was only to apply to violence against property, he would ask the Committee to consider how wide an area would be covered; and referring to the case of a telegraph wire having been cut, as an instance of an injury to personal property, he said he supposed that the unfortunate man who was suspected by the police of that act would find himself sent for 18 months to Mountjoy Prison. That act might have been done by a schoolboy; but if they did not get the proposed words introduced into the clause, the man who was suspected of having amused himself by cutting telegraph wires would be treated as having committed an agrarian crime. With regard to the view which the Executive in Dublin Castle would take of this question of violence, it was all suspicion. They simply would suspect a man of committing an alleged act of violence against property, and then they would get him imprisoned. The Solicitor General for Ireland had given an instance of a man who died at the Cork Infirmary, who was alleged to have had on his person marks of gunshot wounds, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had assumed those to be reasonable grounds for suspicion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I think I said that he was supposed to be one of the persons whom the constable shot at.
  MR. HEALY,continuing, said, that was one of the men suspected, and if he had survived he would, no doubt, have got 18 months' imprisonment; but the doctor of the Infirmary, who was a personal friend of his, had written to him, and stated that this man had no gunshot wounds upon him whatever.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The man who had no gunshot wound could not have been the man I referred to.
  MR. HEALYthought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had a correction to make he had better reserve his correction till the conclusion of his (Mr. Healy's) observations. The case he referred to was the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned; and it was in reference to that case that the doctor of the Infirmary had written to say that the Solicitor General was entirely wrong. He

  817
  would not say it was a good job that the man had died; but, at any rate, his death had saved him from some inconvenience. And that was an instance of the reasonable suspicion upon which the Government intended to act. They refused to insert anything limiting the Bill, and would act upon such evidence as they got from their own people. He pitied the man whom the Solicitor General might suspect, for he would be in the position of the man at the Cork Infirmary. He pressed the Government to accept the proposed Amendment; and he expressed his readiness to give to the Solicitor General, privately, the letter he had received from the doctor, and some other letters bearing upon the case referred to.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that after the gracious speech of the Chief Secretary he felt, as the Act was to be carried out under the personal superintendence of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant, that the Act would be fairly carried out; and he was glad to know that one of his hon. Colleagues would move an Amendment putting that principle into actual words. But he would just mention an instance of violence against property' which recently happened in the county with which he was connected, and which, he believed, was to be placed in the category of agrarian outrages. There was a landlord, who also happened to be, as was often the case in Ireland, a magistrate. He had an idea that he ought to be a duke, and that he was descended from a great ancient French family. He also believed that he had some right to the protection of a foreign Government. He had lately stated that on account of his magisterial position, and on account of his opposition to the Land League, he had been assaulted by threatening letters and by some papers which nobody could understand, and which were supposed to be the emanation of his own hand and brain. He also complained that a stone had been thrown through his window; but he had been unable to prove that. And some of his own domestics had said that, labouring under some delusion, that gentleman went into his own garden and threw a stone into his own house. He (Mr. Finigan) believed that the people in the neighbourhood regarded that gentleman as a decent and harmless man,
  818
  and would do him no wrong whatever. But supposing that magistrate, after the promise of the Chief Secretary, chose to send up to Dublin Castle a confirmation or a complaint against any particular Land Leaguer, and so got him imprisoned for 18 months, what remedy, in law or justice, would that man have? As the Chief Secretary had said that he would personally see the Act carried out, with the aid of the Lord Lieutenant, there was not much more need to go into the Amendments; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to introduce, in actual words, the promise that he had made.
  MR. LALORreminded the Committee, that, under the existing law, any act of violence to property in Ireland, by fire or in any other way, had to be paid for by the tenant farmers of the district; and it was impossible to believe that the tenant farmers could be so stupid as to be guilty of acts of violence, knowing that within a few weeks they would have to pay for them. He, therefore, urged the Government to bear in mind that the property of the landlord was fully protected under the existing law.
  MR. GILLthought, that as the Bill under consideration was for exceptional legislation, the Government ought to yield the very small concession asked for in the proposed Amendment—namely, that the crimes which were to come under the operation of the Act should be only crimes against the person, for it was very hard for a man to be sent to prison, not for committing a crime, but on the suspicion of committing a crime. Some of the crimes set forth in the Returns wore of a very ridiculous nature. For instance, there was a case of someone having cut three inches of hair off a heifer's tail, and another of someone cutting the ear off a donkey. Such cases ought to be dealt with by the ordinary law, without an exceptional Act of Parliament. If a man taken before a magistrate or a jury was convicted, he should be punished; but it was much too bad that a man should be liable to 18 months' imprisonment, simply through some policeman sending word to Dublin Castle that he was suspected of cutting a few inches of hair off a cow's tail. He was convinced that it would be impossible for the

  819
  Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant to examine every case, and that if some such concession as that suggested was not made in the wording of the Bill, very many men who were perfectly innocent would be put into prison on the more suspicion of some petty offence.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 128: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
  MR. M'COAN,in rising to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out all the words from "or," to "order," in line 12, both inclusive, said, he moved the Amendment not with much hope of his suggestion being accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but rather to elicit from him, once for all, a definition of offences included within those lines, which might have weight and authoritv in time to come.
  MR. HERMONrose to Order. Had not the Amendment now proposed been moved already?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It does not appear to me that the same Amendment has been already moved.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he proposed to omit certain words in the clause—namely,
  "Or inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order."
  He did not think that there could be any form of words more vague and elastic than those he had just read. In a previous speech of the Prime Minister he had assured the House that that Act would not be used to curtail the right of argument. When he compared those words with the present clause, he confessed he regarded the terms of the clause with some anxiety. He should, therefore, like to elicit from the Chief Secretary a definition of what he regarded as an incitement to an act of violence tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. An ordinary reader of those words would certainly think that they included that which the Prime Minister said the Irish tenant farmers would be free to practise—namely, to advise another not to pay more than a certain rent. Would it be illegal to attend a meeting of the Land League and say that the tenants should
  820
  not pay more than Griffith's valuation? Such advice as that would clearly be an incitement to interfere and disturb the maintenance of law, for it would mean a breach of contract. He should be glad to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary upon the point.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, lino 10, to leave out all the words from "or," to "order," in line 12, both inclusive.—(Mr. M'Coan.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member has asked me whether, if he were to attend a meeting and advise the people not to pay more than Griffith's valuation, that would be covered by this clause? I do not think it would. I do not think that he would have committed an act of violence or intimidation, or would have incited to such an act. There seems to be a most extraordinary forget-fulness among hon. Members this evening. There is a difference between "and" and "or." There must be an act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to such an act, and tending to disturb, &c, not or tending to. Consequently, it is considerably limited. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. BIGGARwished to ask, as a point of Order, whether it was competent to the hon. Member to put that Amendment? There were several other Amendments which referred to the same lines, and he did not see how they were to be considered in the event of the present one being accepted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member brought mo his Amendment I pointed that out to him, and he stated that he had conferred with his hon. Friends, and they quite understood that.
  MR. M'COANsaid, the Chairman must have misunderstood him. He only referred to the Amendment of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond). ["Order!"]
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was not quite sure whether he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary when he called attention to the fact that there was a great distinction between "and" and "or." The clause stated that the act committed must be an act of violence or intimidation, or inciting to such an act, and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance

  821
  of law and order. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that acts of violence or intimidation not tending to disturb law and order might be committed? What was the object of those words? Were they words of limitation or of extent? Either they were necessary or unnecessary. If necessary, were they so in order to qualify the fact that acts of violence or intimidation might be committed? If unnecessary, why should they remain in the clause? He thought that the Irish Members had a solid reason for being alarmed at those words. He had no wish to make any insinuation; but be would submit to the Treasury Bench a meaning which it was quite possible to put upon the clause, although it might be foreign to the minds of right hon. Gentlemen—namely, that a certain class of acts of violence or intimidation might be practised by the landlords, and that the Government wished to avoid interfering with those acts. If that were not so, why not remove the qualifying words? In the case of a recent prosecution for intimidation in County Bantry, it came out in the evidence that the Land Leaguers who had visited a tenant had not intimidated him at all, but that he was greatly intimidated by the magistrate and sub-inspector of police, when they came to take down his information. All classes should be treated alike under the Bill, and, in order to effect that object, he should desire to seethe qualifying words struck out of the clause.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that as he understood that he could not put his Amendment, he desired to state his reasons why he put it upon the Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can only speak on this Amendment.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that, at any rate, the present Amendment and his own were so much the same that he was precluded from bringing his forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for "Wicklow would not come under the operations of that Bill if he wont to a public meeting and advised people not to pay more than a certain rent. But, in a case of that kind, it would not be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that would be taken, but that of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers had laid down plainly that such an act would be
  822
  one of inciting to an act of violence or intimidation. That being so, he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Now if those words remained in the Bill, the House of Commons would practically be putting a stop to freedom of discussion, and preventing hon. Members of that House from going to their constituents and speaking freely and plainly to them. [Cries of "Divide!"] He could assure the Committee that if he had consulted his own feelings in the matter, he would not stand up there to advocate any Amendment in the Bill. He felt that it was useless, for the Government seemed determined to make no concession, and that it would be the more dignified course for the Irish Members to withdraw from the discussion on the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members might say "Hear, hear!" but they seemed to forget that that kind of cheer showed clearly how difficult a settlement of the Irish Question would be, as they absolutely declined to co-operate with the Representatives from Ireland. He had risen purely from a sense of duty to his constituents, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to tell them whether his opinion upon the words referred to in the Amendment agreed with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. LEAMYwas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland did not respond to the invitation which was extended to him courteously enough by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He knew that Irish Members were lately put upon their trial by the Solicitor General on a charge of conspiracy, simply because they had given that particular advice. If he were to advise 10 or 15 tenants not to pay more than Griffith's valuation, or not to pay any rent at all, and one of those tenants afterwards turned round and inflicted some injury upon some property, would he be held responsible for language which had incited to an act of violence? ["Hear, hear !"from the Treasury Bench.] Right hon. Gentlemen said "Hear, hear!" so they agreed that that would be an act of violence or intimidation. The mere fact of non-payment of rent was no criminal offence. Was it, then, a criminal offence to advise men to do what was not

  823
  criminal? If not, they would be perfectly within the law. The advice to the tenant not to pay more than a certain rent would be advice to him to refrain from doing that which the law allowed him to refrain from doing. Could he, then, be put in gaol for doing that which the law allowed him to do? But that advice, which was given by certain Members of Parliament in common with others, laid the foundation of one of the counts of the indictment in a trial lately held in Dublin. He submitted that if that clause were passed in its present state, its scope would depend upon the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. If the Bill became law, it would be impossible to know what advice could be given to one's constituents. If perfectly legal advice were given, and any person who listened to it should do something unlawful, it appeared to him that the advisor would be liable. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that a person who gave advice would only be responsible for the natural consequences which flowed from that advice. He thought that, under those circumstances, an account of the difficulty which would exist as to those natural consequences, it would be almost impossible to give any advice at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given one legal opinion, and he now wanted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether, if Irish Members advised their constituents not to pay more than a certain rent, they would be hold responsible for the consequences not directly resulting from that advice, and also whether they would be held guilty of a criminal offence if any act of violence could, in the opinion of the Law Officers, be traced directly or indirectly to the advice given, if the advice was in itself legal?
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought it almost unnecessary to press the Law Officers for an opinion, because they had understood that the Chief Secretary meant to act on his own responsibility in the matter. He did not appear to intend to attach any importance to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. At the same time, there seemed to be no reason why the proposed Amendment should receive more attention than it had as yet received. In most cases the magistrates would rarely submit the
  824
  cases. It might be that they as well as their supporters would think themselves justified under that Act in using a certain amount of intimidation, not so as to interfere with the maintenance of law and order but, as they might consider, to maintain it. He thought it would be well to draw that clause so as to include acts of intimidation concerning what they might term legal acts as well as those that were illegal. It was only too notorious that there was a wholesale legal intimidation in Ireland. Certainly, under that Bill, it would seem that the Government were of opinion that intimidation in support of law and order was quite proper. However, he thought that a clause of that sort might fairly be looked at from the point of view of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Red-mund), and it would only have been courteous had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland replied to him.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that it had been laid down that the advice could not be given to tenants with regard to the payment of rent. He had often given such advice, and he should do so again. It was a Law Officers' crime only, and, therefore, he had no scruples with regard to it. He had visited last winter a district in Cork—Adrigoole—where he was informed by the priest that the entire population of the parish, except about 20, were on the relief list as famine stricken. It was not only no crime for them not to pay rent, but it was their duty not to pay it. It was possible for these poor people to be reduced to a condition of famine again this spring. ["Question !"] Those who cried "Question!" could not have studied the Question, and he was happy to see that the Chairman did not agree with those hon. Members who considered that what he was saying was out of Order. The Irish Members told these poor people to break their "sacred contracts," and intended, when they returned to Ireland again, to advise them, if threatened with famine, to pay no rent. Not only did they think it right, but they considered it their duty to give this advice. It might be said that they would be "disturbing law and order." For the law and order that had existed in Ireland for the last few hundred years he had a great contempt, and he would have very little hesitation in doing a great deal to disturb the main-

  825
  tenance of that law and order. This was all he had to say on the question.
  MR. FNIGANwished the Government would altogether withdraw, or substitute some more definite phrase for, this "inciting to an act of violence," as it was a most difficult thing to say what was or what was not an "act of violence." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean an incitement within the ordinary law, or an incitement to an act of violence as it might be translated by a magistrate or a police-constable? A person might say the most Constitutional thing possible which might be translated by these authorities into an incitement to an act of violence. Really, the hon. Member for Waterford had raised a very serious question, and the Government ought to make some answer to it. If the Government were interested in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, they ought to put in the measure some clause under which landlords would be prevented from evicting tenants who had not the means of paying their rent, and then they might justly introduce a provision to prevent one tenant coercing another, and thereby preventing him from obeying the law. What was sauce for the tenant ought to be sauce for the landlord, and he hoped the Government would see their way to bring in a Bill, not only against tenants, but also against landlords who—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling altogether outside the Question before the Committee.
  MR. FINIGANonly wished to say, in conclusion, that he placed confidence in the declaration of the Chief Secretary that he would, personally, see that the Act was properly carried out.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the question put to the Government by several hon. Members seemed to be a very simple one, and one to which they were entitled to an answer. Supposing Land League meetings were held in Ireland after the passing of the Act—meetings of a similar character to those of which hundreds were held during the autumn—and speakers gave the tenantry advice not to pay rent beyond Griffith's valuation, although at the same time strongly counselling abstention from acts of violence—supposing they told the people to offer only such passive resistance to the law as consisted in refusing to carry out a civil contract, would they be liable to
  826
  arrest? It must be remembered that very eminent persons had declared these arrangements between landlord and tenant not to possess the essentials of contracts, as the two parties to them were not dealing on equal terms. Supposing in the future hon. Members gave the advice to the tenantry of Ireland that hundreds of men, who were not desirous of coming in contact with the law of the land, had given in the past, and that advice was followed, and a great many evictions occurred, and, in spite of their condemnation of all acts of violence, some crimes were committed, would the consequences of those crimes attach to such hon. Members? That was what he was anxious to get at. Were words in themselves innocent and outside the operation of the Act, because consequences ensued which were not fairly to be expected from the advice given at a meeting? If he himself were to attend a meeting, and say to the people—"I advise you, until a settlement of this question is brought about, not to pay rent above Griffith's valuation, "or" I advise you, under existing circumstances, to pay no rent at all, but you must not in any way oppose the execution of the law; "and if a riot were subsequently to take place in consequence of evictions, would he be held responsible for such riot? Would his words be judged by themselves, or would they be judged in connection with the consequences which he had endeavoured to guard against? The Attorney General, no doubt, would be able to give him an answer which would leave him precisely as wise as he was before; but he thought the Irish Members were entitled to a straightforward answer for the reason that in a month or two cases in point would probably arise. He had been so confused by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary, that he could not comprehend whether, in their minds, there was any intention to punish men who went on speaking at public meetings under this Act. He could see that the Act might easily be used for that purpose; and although, in some of their speeches, Ministers had stated that it would not be used for the purpose of arresting prominent members of the Land League, he gathered from the ready cheers with which some part of the observations of the hon. Member for Waterford was received that it would be

  827
  used for that purpose. He wished to know how far the Act was to be used to put down public speaking in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not know that anything I could say would be more explicit than the words of the Bill itself, and I am quite sure that no one understands the words better than the hon. Member himself. He is perfectly well aware of the meaning of the words "inciting to an act of violence or intimidation."
  MR. GRAY: And "tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes; and "tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order." The hon. Member puts a very difficult case, and I should advise him to keep well within the limits of the law. The hon. Gentleman put the ease of giving some advice, and seemed to suppose that the result of giving that advice would be that the people would use force and intimidation. ["No, no !"] Well, he expressed himself as though that would be the natural result. I think it would, in that case, be very difficult to decide whether it was not inciting to an act of violence or intimidation.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was a case on which they required a little more satisfaction from the Attorney General for Ireland, as it really touched the root of the whole Land agitation, and affected every word that was said on a Land League platform in Ireland. He was of opinion that, morally and legally, they had a perfect right to tell the tenants not to pay beyond a certain amount of rent. He did not know whether the Attorney General would agree with him as to his law; but he was quite certain as to the morality of such advice. Here was a case similar to that just put before the Committee. He attended a Land meeting, and found in the district in which it was held that, owing to a bad harvest, or a succession of bad harvests, the rents which at one time were reasonable, had become exorbitant. Well, he argued that by the Land Act of 1870 the tenants had become co-partners in the soil with the landlords; and, this being so, as in a commercial concern where no profits had been earned none could be divided. Although the capital would not be touched, the tenants were not bound to suffer all
  828
  the loss—it must fall equally on both partners. He saw the Prime Minister shook his head, dissenting from this proposition; but, at any rate, he (Mr. O'Connor) wished to ask whether he was within his rights, or was going to be thrown into prison, for advising the tenantry not to pay rent or to pay only what was fair? If that was considered illegal advice, and would bring him within the Act, he had a perfect right to be warned. He dared say he should be obliged, not many days after this Act was passed, certainly within some period during its continuance, to address his constituents or some body of the Irish people on the Land Question. He wished to know what were the limits under which he would be addressing the people, as he did not wish to be sent to prison if he could well avoid it? As he did not wish to break the law, he wished to know what was the law? He would address this question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)drew the hon. Member's attention to the words "reasonable suspicion."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, if the right hon. and learned Member would answer him on his legs in the ordinary manner he would be obliged to him. There were some Members on the opposite side of the House who had a conscientious objection to the payment of tithes; and supposing one of them went, during the existence of a Coercion Bill, and said to his co-religionists—"This tax is an immoral and unjust tax; it is contrary to your religious doctrines and moral feelings. As law-abiding subjects you are bound not to break the law; but you are bound, as moral men, not to actively assist it. Therefore, I call on you to give a passive resistance to the tax." Would such a man be imprisoned? He (Mr. O'Connor) gave the same advice on the Land Question. He did not wish his constituents to get into the hands of the police; but he said to them—"Your rent has become exorbitant owing to the state of the times; the law deprives you of your right of co-partnership in the soil which you have had for centuries, and which the Prime Minister has recognized, and you are therefore bound in morality not to assist in carrying out the law; don't resist evictions, but don't pay an unjust

  829
  rent; don't buy or bid for land from which another person has been evicted, because thereby you become a participator in the immorality of the law. "The Irish Members required something like a definite answer as to the legality of such advice, and really the statement of the Chief Secretary was no answer at all. The idea of telling hon. Members that they had better be careful not to go beyond the limits of the law! These jokes, no doubt, relieved the tedium of the right hon. Gentleman's duties, and the Committee, no doubt, welcomed the evidence of a now power and talent in the right hon. Gentleman; but this was really a serious business they were dealing with, and hon. Members wanted something besides such answers as these from a Member of the Government. It was evident from what the Chief Secretary had said, both with regard to this and several other Amendments, that he wished to have a large reserve power in this Bill. It was a very convenient thing in political controversy to have the means of stopping the tongue of an opponent by putting that opponent into prison. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, would shrink from anything like an unfair exercise of the provisions of the Bill; but it was a very convenient thing for him to know that if the hon. Member for Carlow, or any other Irish Member, became obstreperous, he could silence him by putting him in gaol.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwished to add this view of the question to the views which had been already presented to the Committee. In respect of other Acts of Parliament, the subject had this security, that when they were to be enforced they went before the Courts of Law for interpretation. Under the Coercion Act the Irish people would be deprived of that security, because the provisions would not be construed by a Court of Law. There would be no appeal to a Court of Law. The Act would be carried out according to the will and pleasure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and the only appeal they would have would be to the House of Commons, which they knew would not be an appeal under which it would be possible for them to discuss the construction of the Act. They were, therefore, entitled to have the Act construed here now, because the persons who would have to administer it were present, sur-
  830
  rounded by their Law Officers. They were entitled to this all the more because the Act was one interfering with the highest rights of the people.
  MR. BIGGARwas afraid, that if the Bill passed in its present form an ex parte statement to the effect that a person was afraid to pay rent, because, if he did, he might suffer some injury, might involve someone else in difficulties. The person who made such a statement clearly would have some interest in misleading the landlord. The Bill would proceed too far unless amended, as they would see on recollecting what had occurred at Cork a short time ago. Three friends of his—two of them hon. Members—were prosecuted for alleged intimidation, the prosecutor having in the first instance, in his ex parte statement before the magistrates, told them what they considered sufficient to justify them in sending these gentlemen for trial. When, however, the prosecutor was subjected to cross-examination, he was not able to substantiate the charge he had made. It appeared that the accused bad only told him not to pay more than a certain amount of rent, and that they had never intimidated him. The words, as they appeared in the clause, wore too vague, and under them a man could be imprisoned for advising a person to take too much drink, if the person who followed that advice got into a street row and broke the peace. The Government should accept the Amendment, because, otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to live in Ireland without putting themselves in such a position that the Chief Secretary could "reasonably suspect" them of having broken the law or incited someone else to break it.
  Mr. GRAYhere rose—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. GRAY: I intend to conclude with a Motion that is in Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. GRAY: I am about to move that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not the power of making that Motion, having already spoken on the Question before the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was useless for the Irish Members to offer arguments in support of any Amend-

  831
  ments, as the Government were not open to reason, having made up their minds. The Government had behind them a plastic majority, who would outvote the Irish Members on every occasion. It was no use for them to move Amendments, and it appeared to him that there was a much better way for the people of Ireland to meet the Bill. The answer of the Irish people to the refusal of the Government to accept so reasonable an Amendment as the present should be an universal and immediate strike against the payment of all rent. That would be a direct and simple way of meeting the Government attack on the liberties of the people, and he hoped they would adopt it. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the magistrates and the police were not to administer the law in Ireland, and said—"You should have confidence in me and the Lord Lieutenant." Well, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not attempt to disguise his utter want of confidence in the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant. He had never seen anything in the Chief Secretary to induce him to have the least confidence in his judgment or knowledge of the law. Tonight the 'right hon. Gentleman seemed to be at sea with the Law Officers of the Crown, and already during the progress of the Bill he had changed his mind more than once.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks more closely to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to have confidence in him, especially in regard to the mode in which he was likely to interpret the clause. But he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to know what was the exact amount of confidence that was to be reposed in the right hon. Gentleman, and what that confidence would involve?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he is speaking wide of the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that any attempt to speak to the Amendment seemed to be very much like trying to walk on a greased pole. If he was not allowed to adduce anything by way of illustration to his argument, he failed to see what use there was in addressing the Committee at all. Before he sat down he wished to point out that the
  832
  right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question put to him by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A.M. Sullivan) as to the necessity or non-necessity of the words "tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order." Her Majesty's Government had abstained from answering that question for a simple and obvious reason. They could not answer it, and they dare not answer it. In order to give them time for reflection, he would move now that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. At this hour (10.30) I consider that that is a Motion for the purpose of Obstruction, and I shall put it forthwith.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I have not heard the Question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I am quite in Order. I have not heard the Question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The glass has not yet run out.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 214: Majority 186.—(Div. List, No. 40.)
  Original Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the last;division was, he believed, intended to extract from the Government an interpretation of what they meant by the words they proposed to retain in the clause, and that interpretation had not yet been given. There were many reasons why the Government should give such an interpretation as would satisfy the House and satisfy also the country. It was too late now to discuss the principle of the Bill, as that principle had already been decided on the second reading. He was sure that a large portion of the people of England would object to have these arbitrary and despotic forms passed, unless they were framed in Constitutional language. This was a

  833
  Constitutional country, and no exercise of despotic power was allowed. By the clause as it stood, the powers of the magistracy were restricted, and they had no discretion allowed to them. The object of the Irish Executive appeared to be to obtain despotic power to the extent of enabling them to subject everybody in Ireland to 18 months' imprisonment, explained by no rules or previous decisions, entirely unfettered by anything whatever—even by a discretion that could be questioned. The words were "inciting to an act of violence or intimidation." Was a person using ordinary language, and held to be consistent with all the privileges of addressing a public meeting on a platform, or elsewhere—was such a person to be held liable for the act of another person, who was entirely acting on his own responsibility? Was one man to shelter himself under the alleged language of some previous speaker, and say that it was an incitement to a breach of law and order? Was he to be allowed to make another criminally responsible in order to shelter himself? Suppose that a speaker addressing a Land League meeting or any other political meeting in Ireland, stated that, under certain circumstances, it would be legitimate for a tenant to refuse to pay an exorbitant rent, would he be allowed afterwards to lessen the criminality of the act by pointing out that the language had been used on some other occasion by some other person? He wished to know whether the Act in that respect was to be retrospective or not? He would put a case that might happen. In this country, at this moment, there was a class of contracts which had been as much liable to observation, and even to judicial condemnation, as any contract between an Irish landlord and his tenants. Bills of sale were often drawn up that were of a most inequitable character. They were frequently as inequitable, as hard, as cruel, and as unchristian as any agreement between an Irish landlord and his tenant. Every day they had solicitors, counsel, and others advising persons to refuse to carry out the conditions of those bills of sale; and when an appeal was made to a Court of Law, there was, at least, one learned Judge who was willing to hear a complaint, and to use the power with which the law had invested him in pre-
  834
  venting the holders of these bills of sale from oppressing the unfortunate people who had given them. But a solicitor who would advise resistance to a bill of sale would, in Ireland, under this Bill, be liable to arrest and 18 months' imprisonment, for inciting to an act which tended to disturb the maintenance of law and order. Yet the advice given by a solicitor under such circumstances had the sanction of a distinguished English Vice Chancellor; and he wanted to know how a parallel case—for there were thousands of cases in which contracts quite as unequitable were made between the Irish landlords and their tenants—would be dealt with in Ireland, when this measure became law? Would an act which, in England, was approved and sanctioned by the judgment of one of the highest Judges in the land, be sanctioned in the case of a solicitor who advised the nonpayment of rent under an unequitable contract in Ireland? He wished to see in the Bill something that would tie up in words the discretionary power that was to be vested in the hands of the Executive. If he were prepared to intrust his liberty to any man he would intrust it to the right hon. and learned Attorney General; but he would willingly intrust it to no man; and if they were to not have guarantees of legal restriction and provisions contained in direct words in the Act, they ought to have, at least, a guarantee or assurance to prevent a man, whose honour they could not trust like they could trust that of the Attorney General, from carrying out the provisions of the measure in a tyrannical manner.
  MR. METGEsaid, it appeared that the Irish Members were in so much disgrace with the Government that they were not to get an answer to a clear and simple question. Were they to be sent back to Ireland without any assurance at all as to the restrictions which this measure would place upon their liberty? Be it remembered that the Act was to be put in force on the mere word of anyone who declared to the Lord Lieutenant that he suspected a person to be guilty of one of the crimes enumerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had told the House that he had drawn up the Bill with the greatest care and attention, and not in a rough or hasty manner. If the right hon. Gentleman had thought over every word of

  835
  the Bill he must have considered its legal consequences; and all the Irish Members asked of him was to give them an expression of his opinion as to what those legal consequences were. He appealed again to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the discussion to close without giving the Irish Members the satisfaction of knowing how far they might go without bringing themselves under the provisions of the Act. This appeal seemed to be very amusing to hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. Many of them had gone as far themselves without having any Act of Parliament to restrict their rights of public speaking. They had even stirred up a spirit of agitation in Ireland without fearing any consequences from the law. So far as he was personally concerned, he honestly declared in that House that he would not be restricted by any Act. He would go as far as his duty directed him; and in wishing to know what were the limits of the Act, he asked for the information as a matter of justice to the people of Ireland, and not for his own individual liberty, which would not be restricted by any Act.
  THE O'DONOGHUEregretted that the Irish Members were unable to obtain an explanation from the Government; and if his hon. Friend pressed his Amendment to a division he should certainly vote in support of it. He did not share the view which, many of his hon. Friends appeared to have, that this Bill would have much effect in cheeking the land agitation. He was sure that it would have no such effect. Indeed, he had heard a declaration from the Government that the Bill was not intended to affect the land agitation, and that they would still be quite free to preach the most revolutionary doctrines. He certainly did not entertain the slightest apprehension that the Bill would shake the land agitation.
  MR. GILLthought the Irish Members were entitled to an answer from the Government to the question they had asked in regard to what would bring Irishmen under this law. He held a letter in his hand which had been written within the last few days by a Roman Catholic Bishop in Ireland, which, by a loose interpretation of this clause, would render the right rev. Prelate as much liable to be arrested as any man in the country. He showed in
  836
  the letter that a great number of the contracts that were in existence in Ireland were inequitable and unjust, and of a kind that ought not to be kept. To show how extremes met, he might also quote a passage from an English writer, a Positivist, in The Contemporary Review this month. If he were to use the same words on a platform in Ireland as those he found in The Contemporary Review, he would certainly be liable to be arrested. The writer was Professor Beesley, and he said—
  "To talk of an agreement between a Con-naught landlord and a Connaught tenant as one of contract is contrary to common sense."
  These were the words used by a gentleman who called himself a Positivist. The Roman Catholic Bishop said—
  "A contract is a sacred engagement voluntarily entered into between two parties free and independent of each other."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how either of these extracts bear upon the Question before the Committee.
  MR. GILLsaid, his line of argument was that, according to the interpretation of the clause they were now discussing, any one might be arrested for advising others not to be bound by their contracts; and he wanted to show that many of these contracts might be considered, by a loose interpretation of the Act, as binding or not binding. He would not, however, pursue that line of argument, because he thought he had sufficiently shown what his object was. But he thought they ought to know, especially in reference to the present agitation, to what lengths the Irish people might go. Some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and also, he thought, the Chief Secretary himself, said that this Bill was not intended to interfere with the legitimate agitation of the Land League. The opinions expressed in the language he had quoted were the result of the legitimate agitation of the Land League; and he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to give some assurance as to how far the Irish people might go in that agitation without rendering themselves liable to the clutches of the law, as it would be administered under the Coercion Act.
  MR. BYRNEconsidered the Bill was drawn in a manner by no means clear; and it was only fair to ask that it should

  837
  be made clear, in order that the people should be prevented from committing an offence that would bring them within its operation. He assumed the Irish people would still have the right to assemble in public meetings, and that hon. Members would have to address their constituents, from time to time, upon various subjects connected with the Land Question in Ireland. That would be his duty; and having a desire to keep within the law himself, and to advise his constituents to do likewise, it appeared to him that the question asked by his hon. Friend was entitled to a clear and fair answer. If it was not intended to interfere with the right of public meeting in Ireland, some emphatic statement should be given on the part of the Government; and the sooner it was done the better it would be for the interests of the Government and the peace of the Irish people. He wished the Government would act on the principle of giving no one an opportunity of breaking the law unless it was done intentionally. If proof of the offence were contemplated by the Bill there would not be such a necessity for having the law precisely denned; but, inasmuch as reasonable suspicion was the only ground of arrest, he thought the language of the Act should be made perfectly clear to the people who would be subject to its operation. Her Majesty's Government said they were as desirous as Irish Members were of governing Ireland wisely and well; and if these were their intentions the question of his hon. Friend was certainly one which, in an Assembly of sensible Gentlemen, ought to receive a reply.
  MR. DALYsaid, he intended to ask a question of the Premier, which he was entitled to have answered., if he was to subjected to the imposition of that exceptional law. He wished to know what was meant by the words "tending to intimidate" or disturb the maintenance of law and order. He would recall to the right hon. Gentleman his own words, and ask him whether, in these days of coercion, the Irish Members could follow the line he himself marked out for them? The right hon. Gentleman used these words—
  "If you will take these words and weigh them, I say they hear out in the strictest sense the definition of my right hon. Friend, that weaim by this Bill, and aim solely at the perpetrators and abettors of outrage…They
  838
  do not in the slightest degree justify the suspicion that we are interfering with the liberty of discussion. I will go further. We are not attempting to interfere with the licence of discussion. There is no interference here with the liberty to propose the most subversive and revolutionary changes. There is no interference here with the right of associating in the furtherance of those changes, provided that furtherance is by peaceful means. There is no interference here with whatever right hon. Gentlemen may think they possess to recommend and bring about not only changes of the law, but in certain cases breaches of positive contract. I am not stating these things as a matter of boast. I am stating them as a matter of fact. I must say it appears to me that it is a very liberal state of law which permits hon. Gentlemen to meet together to break a contract into which they have entered, and yet liberal as that state of things is, there is no interference with it whatever by this Bill."—[3 Hansard, c clvii. 1686–7.]
  They were bound to assume that a Gentleman of the Premier's great experience spoke what he meant, and he wished to know whether they were to be at liberty to do what he indicated? Her Majesty's Government were setting up an unknown law, and were refusing to indicate the line of conduct which would keep people from breaking that law. He had a right, therefore, to demand from the Attorney General for Ireland what interpretation he placed upon the words in question; and, no matter what amount of impatience was manifested by the Committee, it was only due to Irish Members that the right hon. Gentleman should rise in his place and explain.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he did not take part in the last division, because he did not approve of such a Motion being made so early; but he was not the less indignant, as an Irish Member, at the studied insult conveyed by the reticence of the Government, and at the obstructive tactics pursued in the House with the sanction of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member is speaking to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wanted to get an answer to the question put so often. As he would have to return to Ireland and do his duty to his constituents there, he wished to know from the responsible Ministers of the Crown how far the liberty of the subject would be preserved to him. The Prime Minister stated that the Bill was not intended to put down the Land League, nor freedom, nor even licence of speech. The question was whether a rampant, tyrannical majority—["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the words which he has now used, as they are not within the usual courtesies of the House.
  MR. CALLANcontended that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had not been courteous to Irish Members, inasmuch as they had declined to give an answer to a fair question; and he maintained—although it might not be courteous to say it—that their conduct was a studied insult and their tactics obstructive.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 48: Majority 189.—(Div. List, No. 41.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORproposed to insert, after the words "law and order," the words" nothing in this Act being held to interfere with liberty of discussion or association."
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to Order, and asked whether an Amendment in his name should not be taken first?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had an Amendment; but the Committee have decided to go on in this order.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsubmitted that he was not precluded from moving his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is mistaken.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,resuming, said, the interpretation of the clause might be perfectly apparent to the Law Officers of the Crown; but he wished to make it perfectly clear. On the authority of several speakers from the Treasury Bench, he took it that the Government had no desire to interfere with freedom of speech at public meetings, or with association. The Prime Minister had said that there was no ground for interfering with the preaching of particular doctrines, even when the preaching of such doctrines might be taken to interfere with contracts; and the Prime Minister, having said that, could not, he thought, object to it being embodied in the Bill, for the interpretation of the Act would not regulate the working of the Act; but the interpretation of the Law Officers and the magistrates, and any other persons who would have to carry out the Act. The words he proposed would be a barrier against the ill-use of the Act, and, at the
  840
  same time, would not overload it with unnecessary words. They were the more necessary because the interpretation of the Prime Minister had not been sanctioned by the Attorney General or any of his Colleagues; and consequently the people of Ireland would be left unprotected unless those words, which seemed to represent the meaning of the Premier's speech, were added.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 12, to insert "nothing in this Act being held to interfere with liberty of discussion or association."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I should like to ask the hon. Member whether he seriously proposes the insertion of these words?
  ME. T. P. O'CONNOR: Certainly.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The clause would then run thus:—
  "Any person may be arrested and detained upon reasonable suspicion of his being guilty of any crime punishable by law, being an act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, and tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order, "but" nothing in this Act shall be held to interfere with liberty of discussion or association."
  So that the proposition is this—a man may be arrested upon suspicion of being-guilty of any crime, violence, or intimidation known to the law, or of inciting to any such crime; but nothing in the Act shall authorize the arrest of any person who incites to a crime of violence, or is believed guilty of the offence of intimidation in any of its forms, provided it is done in wholesale in an address to a public meeting, or in pursuance of a combination for such guilty purpose. It seems to me that the circumstances thus relied on by the hon. Member as ground for exemption from the Act tend to intensify guilt of the party rather than diminish it. It surely will not be gravely contended that because the incitement to crime—let us suppose, to murder—comes in the course of a speech at a public meeting, therefore the man who thus incites to murder is not to be arrested.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the Irish Members agreed that if a man incited to murder or assassination he must

  841
  suffer for it; but, in their judgment, the Bill was calculated, through the Irish magistracy, to strike down agitation on the Land Question. This he stated to put them right with the Committee, for they were offering all the resistance they could against what they believed would strike at public agitation and drive people to Ribbon societies and secret agitation. Mr. Froude had said that in Ireland landlordism was tempered by assassination. He knew Conservative Members of the House who considered that a deadly incentive to violence in Ireland; but because it was said, or written, by Mr. Froude it was no harm. It was equivalent to saying that; but for assassination, you know what landlordism would be. The dread of assassination holds the hand of the tyrannical landlord." A speech was made by an agitator who, pointing to the condition of the Irish tenantry, said—
  "If Ireland were removed a thousand miles away all this would be changed, or the landlords would he exterminated by the vengeance of the people."
  Was that an incentive to crime and violence? Was that a speech in support of law and order? No; but it was made by a Member of the present Cabinet before the anger of his soul was tempered by Office, and when he was proud to be denounced as an agitator. By the Bill, with its fatally loose phraseology, with its deadly snare in every line, with its ambiguity, intended to give no protection, the Premier was going to do what Lord Wellesley had shrunk from doing when, with Ireland red with blood, and with 136 murders in one year, he said—"I will not throw the Irish people into the hands of an angry magistracy." He and his hon. Friends resisted every word of the Bill, because they believed that before the 1st of June the Government would understand their fear that the Bill would drive the people into conspiracy in the mountain hut and in the Ribbon lodge. The Attorney General for Ireland had asked the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P; O'Connor) whether he was serious in his Amendment. He would also ask his hon. Friend if he was serious in thinking be would pin the Government to indorse the genial words of the Prime Minister, uttered to smooth the passing of the Bill. They would do
  842
  nothing of the kind; the Prime Minister should be free to speak in the kindly way he loved; and if any man were brought within the lines of the Act within two months, or less, poor protection it would be to him to say he trusted to the words of the friend of Neapolitan prisoners. His hon. Friend might as well not move his Amendment, for deceived and false would be the hope of the Irish peasant of finding the words of the Prime Minister put into any Amendment to protect him from the suspicion that would dog his steps if he attended a Land League meeting. The Amendment was scoffed at by the Attorney General, who asked the hon. Member if he was serious in thinking that the Prime Minister was in earnest, He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a joke; but it was a very solid joke, at the expense of the liberties of the Irish people. The Amendment was an attempt to put into the Bill words uttered by the Prime Minister in protection of public liberty and public agitation; and the time might come to pass when the Prime Minister would understand the anxiety displayed by some hon. Members—anxiety which they would display over every word of the Bill—to protect public agitation in a country which had been too long honeycombed by secret societies.
  MR. BRADLAUGHpointed out that a lawful assembly might be a crime punishable by law, for it had boon held in 1820, in the case of the "King and Hunt," that a meeting held for a lawful purpose, but attended by large numbers of people, might be an unlawful assembly, and a meeting calculated to overawe, and intimidate, and to disturb the maintenance of law and order. The present Justice Stephen, in his Digest of the Criminal Law, quoted Lord Chief Justice Holt's decision that it was quite certain that a meeting convened for a particular purpose, and a perfectly lawful purpose, attended in large numbers, and at which speech was used, although not inciting to direct acts of violence, might be held to be an unlawful meeting from the numbers attending it and the effect of the speeches on people of reasonably firm and courageous disposition in the neighbourhood. As the Government did not intend to interfere with meetings, he thought that, even if they could not adopt the Amendment, they might insert

  843
  words in the Bill which would prevent its being applied in such a case. He did not believe the Government would so apply the Bill; but he submitted that the House should not enact a measure on the faith of what they might do, but on the consideration of what any Government that might be in Office during the continuance of the Bill might do.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the Amendment came within Lord Palmerston's definition of dirt. It was "matter in the wrong place," for it ought to be at the end of the Proviso to read correctly.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed his willingness to put the Amendment in any part of the Bill if the Government would accept it.
  MR. O'DONNELLhad no doubt that the Amendment would be strenuously opposed by the Government, for the same principles which had led them to introduce the retrospective clause, and thus cast a snare about the feet of the people, would lead them to persist in having the Bill as vague, and extended, and un-definable as possible. The Bill would not be interpreted by the Chief Secretary or the Premier, but by the Law Officers of the Crown; and he contended that it should not be left to any of those right hon. Gentlemen to interpret it. It was the policy of the Government to prevent anything like accurate definition, for they wished to have the arm of coercion over the whole of the country; and if the hon. Member for Galway thought that by introducing words taken textually from the speech of the Premier he could bind the Prime Minister by his own words, he would show himself singularly susceptible to hallucination. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to choose other words, for he believed any words other than those of the Premier would have a better chance of acceptance by the right hon. Gentleman, who could explain away his words, and repudiate even his own repudiations.
  DR. COMMINSexpected the Amendment would meet the same fate as others had met; but he entered his protest against the continued persistence of the Government in maintaining the despotic character of the Bill. Every attempt to reduce it from being the most complete and all-absorbing Act ever passed was met with the same persistent and dogged resistance. The Law Officers
  844
  knew the effect of the wide and undefined character of the Bill; but they declined to tie up the hands of the underlings in Ireland, who would have to impose the Act on the people; they declined to have anything like a definition, or anything like a limitation of the power to imprison for anything, or for nothing at all. It had been well observed that the Law Officers would not only have the interpretation of the Act. He was afraid nobody but the policeman and the resident magistrate would interpret the Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the observations of the hon. and learned Member are connected with the question of freedom of discussion.
  DR. COMMINS,continuing, said, the great check upon a law that was oppressive was that it could only be enforced by prosecution and indictment, so that legal interpretation might be put upon it; but the proposed Bill would dispense with that safeguard. There would be neither indictment nor summary procedure; and the only thing there would be to guide the Chief Secretary in his interpretation of the Act would be the information of the police or the magistrates, and he would have to adopt their interpretation of it. If a Judge at Assize, or of a CountyCourt, had the interpretation of the Act, with evidence and legal argument before him, there would be some guarantee that it would be interpreted aright and according to well-known principles of Constitutional law; but he was afraid—in fact, what he complained of was, that there would be no such check on the interpretation of the Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has not yet come to any application of his remarks to the Question before the Committee.
  DR. COMMINS,continuing, said, what they wished was to give a guide to those who would have to interpret the Act, by inserting the words proposed in the Amendment. He was afraid that in the absence of such words as those the Act would be interpreted with reference to the informations and the speeches of Judges at the Assize. Some of those speeches were, in Lord Campbell's words—
  "Not only illegal and unconstitutional; but such that the foreman would have a right to stand up and contest them."

  845
  In its present form, the Act would work, he believed, even more oppressively than it appeared to them likely to do then.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the matter was getting more confused every moment. It was sufficiently confused when the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was made, and it was more so then. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had refused that evening to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) as to whether a certain speech—there had been many such during the agitation—could be brought within the Act. Some words of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government were read, in which he laid down the amount of licence which might be given. Inasmuch as no answer had been given to the hon. Member for Carlow, the hon. Member for Galway City proposed to insert certain words which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. These words had been deliberately rejected. Was that a fair thing to do with the people of Ireland? Under the circumstances, all they could do was, solemnly in that House, to call attention again to the words used by the Prime Minister, when he told them what the Act meant. Here were the words of the Prime Minister—
  "We are not attempting to interfere with the licence of discussion; there is no interference here with the liberty to propose the most subversive and revolutionary changes. There is no interference here with the right of associating in the furtherance of those changes, provided the furtherance is by peaceful means. There is no interference here with whatever right hon. Gentlemen may think they possess, to recommend and to bring about, not only changes of the law, but, in certain cases, breaches of positive contract."—[3 Hansard, c clvii. 1686–7.]
  Let the Representatives of Irish and English landlords in that House listen to those words, and be witnesses when the time came. He did not know the source from which the hon. Member for Galway obtained that report. Now was the time for a correction to be made if there were any inaccuracy.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that that further Amendment had been forced upon them by what, he took leave to say, meaning no personal disrespect, was the indecent refusal of the right hon. and learned Gen-
  846
  tleman the Attorney General to answer a question previously. ["Oh, oh !"1 He would adhere to the word "indecent." That refusal had compelled thorn to appeal from him to his Chief, the Prime Minister. If the meaning of the words was compatible with a declaration of their rights he was content. It would become the candour and dignity of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to tell them what were their rights under that Bill. No man desired to keep within the law more than himself; but, at the same time, he had duties to perform towards his constituents, and he, therefore, would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if they might understand that they might reconcile his words with those of the Bill as it then stood?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise as a matter of courtesy to the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, because the question is quite independent of the demand which has been made upon my right hon. Friends to introduce into the present Bill explanatory words which we believe not to be necessary, and which, we are afraid, might be mischievous. I will take the speech which has been last made. I understand the hon. Member to ask me whether I abide by the explanation, which I made for the information of the House, of what I conceived to be the scope and purport of the Bill before it was in the hands of Members. I see no reason whatever why I should recede from, or modify, those words. Those words were never seen or read by me, and the report is not one authorized by me. At the same time, the only criticism I make on the report is this—that, so far as my memory goes, I never had the presumption of undertaking to determine what the law was with regard to liberty of association, or persuading other persons to break their contracts. But what I did intend to say, and what I believe I did say, was, that whatever the law was upon that subject, whatever rights Gentlemen might think they possessed, they were not interfered with by the present Bill. I have not had the advantage of any communication with those who are bettor informed than myself; but, at any rate, I abide by those words, subject only to the explanation I have now given, which does not at all affect the point at issue.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Bill is not intended to interfere with whatever may turn out to be the existing law. He does not wish to go beyond that.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not concede that any matter connected with the question of the liberty of association for the purpose of dealing even with contracts is interfered with by the present Bill. But what the existing law is, is not for me to decide.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORobserved, that he was responsible for the quotation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which he had carefully copied from The Times newspaper of January 29th. The report and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman were contradictory in the most essential points.
  MR. HEALYcould only say that he believed that the words of the Prime Minister had had a good deal to do with the votes of hon. Members on the second reading. If the Government adhered to the statement of their Chief, why did they not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend? An Amendment should, at any rate, be passed to explain what they really did mean, and what meaning, of all the contradictory ones given, by different Members of the Treasury Bench, was to be accepted. Now, however, that the Government own that the words were cutting against themselves they were anxious to shuffle out of the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister then endeavoured to place a different construction upon the same words that he had uttered on a previous occasion. If the Bill were passed in its present shape the Irish people would be in a pretty plight, for they would be completely at the mercy of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that men could only be arrested for crimes known at Common Law. The Government ought to have no objection to introduce into the clause, and into the warrant, the particular law which, it was alleged, had been broken.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee. I must ask him to con-line himself to that Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the Committee did not appear to appreciate the spirit
  848
  of the Amendment. Its object was to put into the Act of Parliament words which had been used by the Prime Minister.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: In order that I may not be misunderstood, I wish to say that I did not rise before for the purpose of embarrassing the Government, but to make the matter absolutely clear. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he did not pretend to lay down what the law was; but that if a meeting, such as had been alluded to, were unlawful now, it would be unlawful under the Bill; and that if it were lawful it would still be so after the passing of that Act.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he did not take the despondent view of the situation that the hon. Member for Wexford did. He hoped that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would withdraw his Amendment after the explanation of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had made an explanation of the objects of the Bill upon the debate for leave to bring it in; and they had been endeavouring, for the last two hours, to obtain some confirmation of the views of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had shown a great lack of courtesy; but that courtesy had been subsequently displayed by the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentlemen had maintained a rigid silence, apparently with the object of exasperating the Irish Members. However, the right hon. Gentleman had now in Committee in effect confirmed what he had before stated as regarded the scope and intentions of the Bill; and it must be remembered, as regarded the Amendment, that what they had to look to was not so much the precise terms of the clause, but in what light certain occurrences would be regarded by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant in their own province. He believed that the expression of opinion from the real author of the Bill, who was ultimately responsible for it, would be held to mean in Ireland that the Government did not intend to interfere with the ordinary public meetings, He was inclined to place reliance upon what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated; and he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had a similar Amendment on the Paper; but he had not intended to move it. But, before that one was withdrawn, he should like to be permitted to say a few words with regard to the principle at issue—namely, the right of public meeting. He thought the Government would readily agree that the general principle upon which that Bill was based was, that it should come into operation when legal evidence could not be had. Where reporters attended, and there were large audiences, it would be perfectly easy to get evidence. However, the evidence of reporters should always be subjected to examination. For instance, in County Cavan a police constable gave evidence with regard to notes that he had taken at a meeting. A priest who was present saw the constable take note of words having an objectionable meaning without adding the context, which went materially to modify and explain those words. Such evidence was, therefore, incorrect, and should, for that reason, he believed, be subjected to scrutiny.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR NOLAN MAJOR NOLAN rose to move an Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had an Amendment before that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member comes afterwards.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was an Amendment to leave out the words "threatening letters."
  THE CHAIRMAN: That was included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). The hon. Member cannot, therefore, move it.
  MR. GRAYrose to a point of Order. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon was that threatening letters should be included.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It was just the reverse.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped they would agree to his Amendment. Its object was that if a man should be in England or any other part of the United Kingdom, except Ireland, it would not be lawful for the Government to issue a
  850
  magistrate's warrant to bring the man to Ireland for having committed an offence, and there to punish him under that Act. Such cases had occurred under the Westmeath Act, and it was obviously totally opposed to the spirit of the present Bill. If the Law Officers of the Crown could not see their way to agree to his proposal, of course his Amendment would fall to the ground; but he believed they would have no difficulty in doing so. During the War in America, that kind of arrest had been often resorted to, men having been arrested in the South and sent to the North for punishment. It would be better, he believed, and more consonant with English freedom, if, when a man reached this country, he was exempt from the operation of the Act. In his opinion, it would be most unwise for men who wore suspected to be driven to America. He should be quite satisfied if they were driven as far as England. The class of men he had in his mind were the farmers who had joined the land agitation; and these, even if the Amendments moved by the Irish Members had been carried, could be arrested by the Lord Lieutenant if they remained in Ireland. For them to be exiled to England would be punishment, to a certain extent; but from there they would be able to communicate readily with their friends, and manage their farms and look after their families by correspondence. If they were not allowed to come to England they would be placed in a much more painful position. If he was driven to America he would not be able to manage his affairs at home, and he would not be able so easily to communicate with the authorities, and, on promising to remain quiet and not give offence, obtain permission to return to his own country to live free from arrest. There were degrees of banishment. In Russia it was considered a much more severe thing to be banished to a remote part of Siberia than to a near part, and with the Romans the severity of banishment was measured by the distance the exile was sent away from Rome. So in the case of the Irish farmers; and he trusted that the Amendment would be accepted, so that they might not be banished to America.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Provided, That such person

  851
  is in Ireland of his own free will, and has not been recently brought to Ireland in legal custody."—[Major Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "Thatthose words be there inserted."
  MR. GRAYwished to ask the Attorney General whether, in the event of a warrant being issued by the Lord Lieutenant for the arrest of a person for an offence, or supposed offence, committed in Ireland, and after the warrant was issued and before the arrest took place the person sought to be apprehended left for England, the warrant could be sent over to England, indorsed by the Home Secretary or proper authority, and executed in this country? An ordinary warrant, he was aware, could be so executed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Does the hon. Member mean a warrant under this Bill? [Mr. GRAY: Yes.] The warrant would not run in England. Of course, to issue a warrant, as in the ordinary course of law, for the mere sake of getting a man brought to Ireland to arrest him under the special powers of this Act, would be an abuse of the ordinary law. He did not believe cases of this kind would arise; and he thought some reliance might fairly be placed on the intention of the Government to carry out the Act honestly and fairly.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell them that they would honestly carry out the Act. He did not believe in the honesty of the Government. The carrying out of the law would be in the hands of the most dishonest class in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that that is not the Question before the Committee. Mr. O'Connor—
  [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR here rose.]
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether my right to speak is concluded?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right of the hon. Member to speak is not concluded if he speaks to the point; but the subject he was speaking on when I drew his attention to the Question before the Committee was not relevant to that Question.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had no belief in the honesty of the Government; and
  852
  as for the magistrates, on whom the Government had had to rely in scores of similar cases to got hold of a man who was out of their jurisdiction, they would, without compunction, charge him with some paltry crime, bring him from England, and then imprison him under this Act. The magistrates of Ireland, who were the landlords of Ireland, had a good many grudges to avenge; and if they found that the persons they wanted to punish had left for England they would make representations to the Chief Secretary—as he had known them do in the past—that these persons had acted illegally, and so obtaining power to bring them over on a certain charge, imprison them on another, without allowing them to be heard in their own defence. To his own knowledge, men were arrested in England on Common Law charges in 1867, before the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act Bill had been read a second time; they were taken to Ireland, put under lock and key, remanded from day to day until the coercion measure passed, and then imprisoned under it. If the Government, in refusing to accept the Amendment, feared that the Irish Members would occupy too much time on the Report, he would assure them that, in return for a simple concession, the Irish Members would not delay the measure on that stage.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORobjected to the Committee discussing the question whether the Government were honest or not. That had nothing to do with the matter at all, because, on penal legislation, when they were defending the liberties of the people, they must assume that the intentions of the 'Government were dishonest—that the Executive was oppressive and tyrannical. The Government had admitted the claim that he was bound to take as many precautions against him as though he (the right hon. Gentleman) were a Nero or a Caligula. Then, was the proposed precaution an unnecessary one? Would the Attorney General deny that persons had been brought to Ireland under the flimsiest pretexts, and then put in prison under some Coercion Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I do not know of any such cases.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he knew of them. Men had been taken into

  853
  police courts on charges that had not teen proceeded with when the victims were under lock and key. The Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman had been quite as honest as he claimed to be, and had endeavoured to carry out similar Acts honestly; but that had not prevented these arrests being made. Were such arrests fair? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take refuge in discreet silence; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether such arrests were fair? He trusted that a division would be taken on the Amendment.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the effect of the Bill, as it stood, would be to bring England under its provisions indirectly. It was all very well for the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary to have the best intentions in the world; but, as he had said before, they were nothing more than figure heads in this matter, and the carrying out of the law would rest with the Justices, their drivers, caretakers, bailiffs, and the police. The Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary will do nothing more than fiat the decisions of these officials, and exercise a nominal supervision over them. There were branches of the Land League in England and Scotland and Wales, and members of those branches had given money to support the movement. Gentlemen from Ireland, in the past, had addressed the meetings of these branches; and if they did so in the future they might be arrested on frivolous charges, sent over to Ireland, and there imprisoned under the Coercion Act. They had had an instance of frivolous arrests in connection with the murder of the unfortunate Lord Mountmorres. Four persons were arrested in England under a charge that was found to be absolutely ridiculous when it was brought under investigation. The men were discharged, and it must be borne in mind that this was a case in which the magistrates would have committed for trial had there been the slightest scintilla of evidence. An active or energetic policeman or informer could easily swear that he had reason to believe that such and such a person who was in England was implicated in some outrage in Ireland, a warrant would be obtained, that would be backed by the authorities in England, and the victim could be arrested and imprisoned for 18 months
  854
  without any charge being brought against him. He did not think the Government had intended to resort to such a course as this, for it would be a base subterfuge to which he did not think those who had prepared the Bill could be capable of descending; but he asked them to protect themselves against the over-zeal, the malicious designs, and the spite of persons scattered all over Ireland who might have grudges against certain people. For the sake of their own character, and to prevent the dissatisfaction and hatred against the Government that the Bill would otherwise excite, not only in Ireland but in England, he urged the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANcalled attention to a case which had happened a short time ago in which an hon. Gentleman, a Member of the House, who usually resided in England went over to Ireland, and addressed a land meeting there, and out of his speech an information was sworn that he had threatened a tenant. The Gentleman was arrested and committed for trial, but subsequently acquitted by the jury. If that Gentleman had gone over to England, and the Coercion Act had been in operation, what would have happened? Why, a warrant would have been issued in Ireland, it would have been backed in England, and the hon. Gentleman would have been arrested, taken to Ireland, and imprisoned for 18 months without trial. The Attorney General for Ireland had said that to issue a warrant for an ordinary offence, simply in order to get a person in Ireland, would be an abuse of the law; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not speak as a lawyer administering the Act, but as a man and gentleman. He believed the right hon. Gentleman when he said it would be an abuse of the law; but, at the same time, they must not lose sight of what was fairly possible under the measure. Let the Committee decide how they would, they must act with a knowledge of the circumstances that had been put before them by the Irish Members. They must act with their eyes open, and he would tell them that they were on their trial before the Irish people; and if an honest case were made out, and they refused to listen to it, depend upon it they would be storing up an opinion in Ireland which would be heard of hereafter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 170: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to call attention to the fact that the two noble Lords, the Government Whips, in these divisions stationed themselves, not at the door of their own Lobby, but at that of the other side; so that any Liberal Members, going to vote with the Irish Representatives, had to pass the ordeal of their reproachful looks, if not actual dissuasion. Now, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) wished to say of these two noble Lords that their genial courtesy and good nature made them favourites with everyone in the House; and all the more painful it was for anyone, especially their own followers, to run the gauntlet in this way.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he also had thought of calling the attention of the Chair to what he regarded as the unprecedented insolence of the Government Whips in standing at the door, and, when hon. Members came in at that advanced hour of the night from the Smoking Room, telling them into which Lobby they must go. It was but right that the public should know the manner in which the majorities were obtained.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SEA FISHERIES (CLAM AND BAIT BEDS) BILL— [BILL 83.]
(Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ashley.)
SEA FISHERIES (CLAM AND BAIT BEDS) BILL— [BILL 83.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. R. POWERbegged to oppose the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member should have given Notice of his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 5: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Married Women's Property (Scotland) Bill do consist of Nineteen Members:—That Sir DAVID WEDDEEBURN, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. M'LAGAN, and Mr. DALRYMPLE be added to the Committee: Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Anderson.)

  PRESUMPTION OF LIFE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Law as regards the Presumption of Life in persons long absent from Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. OUR EWING, Mr. PRESTON BRUCE, and Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 86.]

  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOPWOOD, Bill to improve the Constitution and amend the District of the Middlesex Land Registry, and to amend the Law relating to the Registration and Transfer of Land in Middlesex and the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. GREGORY, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, and Mr. LEWIS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 87.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Limitation of Actions*(5); Settled Land*(6); Conveyancing and Law of Property*(7); Consolidated Fund*.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether it was true that in 1876 a communication was made by the Russian Government to the Government of this country in which it was proposed to divide Central Asia between Russia and England?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I see by the newspapers that the impression of the existence of such a document exists in seine quarters. The Press has a very natural and very laudable desire to obtain possession of all information; but in some instances it obtains information which is not correct, and which is given by persons who commit a breach of faith in furnishing it. With regard to this case, I do not know how the knowledge of a private Memorandum could be supplied to a newspaper; but as far as I am aware the statement is not true. My attention was called to the matter by seeing in a newspaper the statement referred to by my noble Friend. I have had a diligent search made, and I find, as regards the Foreign Office, that in the archives there is no record of such a communication. Neither is there any recollection of it among the permanent staff of the Office; and I believe the same statement will apply to the Department over which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India presides. I give an answer to the Question which my noble Friend thus put; but, at the same time, I hope my doing so will not be regarded as a precedent that when any statement appears in a newspaper there should at once be a communication on the subject to Parliament, irrespective of any consideration as to whether it may be to the public advantage that such communication should be made.

IRELAND—PASTORAL LETTER OF DR. GILLOOLY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the concluding paragraph of the pastoral letter of Dr. Gillooly, the Bishop of Elphin, to his clergy, communicating to them the recent letter of the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin—
  "Whilst we express this confidence in the religious and peaceful dispositions of our people, we feel it a duty to declare that should the Government and Legislature fail to satisfy in the present Session of Parliament the just demands of the cultivators of the soil, they shall at once forfeit all further claim on restraining influences, which the hope of remedial legislation has hitherto induced a large section of the clergy to exercise in their favour;"
  and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has brought, or intends to bring, this language under the notice of the Holy See? The noble Lord said: I should commence by reminding your Lordships that the recent letter from the Pope to the Archbishop of Dublin contained an injunction to Irishmen to maintain their hereditary probity. It was impossible for a document of the nature of a Papal letter to be more outspoken or more plainly opposed to the teaching of the Land League, which enjoined the withholding of rent, advice which has been followed all over Ireland, as much in unscheduled as in scheduled districts. The importance of the Papal letter, and its value on the side of order, will be still more apparent when it is remembered that a short time before the Archbishop of Cashel had written a letter in favour of the Land League doctrine of holding the harvest, in which he used the words—"The husbandman that laboureth must be the first partaker of the earth's fruits," to support their teaching. Great efforts were also made to lead the Irish people to believe that the Catholic Church had given its sanction to the Land League; and, indeed, the tone of some of the Catholic newspapers in Germany and France at one time might countenance such an opinion. The Pope's letter was published in the newspapers, and ordered to be read out in the Dublin churches; but it was not generally published throughout Ireland, and, according to the public prints, the Pope was dis-

  749
  pleased at this, and again gave instructions for the publication of his letter, After this the Bishop of Elphin communicated the Pope's letter to his clergy, with a pastoral letter. In this he entirely omits all notice of what, under the circumstances, was the principal point of the Pope's letter—namely, adherence to honesty; and he concludes his letter with a threat to the Government and Legislature that unless they pas a Bill in this Session, which shall satisfy what the cultivators of the soil are pleased to think just demands, the clergy of his diocese shall not be expected any longer to exercise their influence in restraining their flocks from outrage. I shall refrain from expresing any opinion of my own as to this language; but will leave it to your Lordships to consider whether it is right for a Christian Bishop to make a matter of bargain and sale of the obligations of his clergy to oppose outrage and wrong on all occasions, even though some popularity might be temporarily lost by so doing. With such an example of the state of mind of an Irish Bishop, it cannot be a matter of surprise that the language and conduct of a large part of the clergy should have been what it has been. A large number of priests have presided at Land League meetings, and have used language there altogether unsuitable to their sacred calling; in still more numerous cases they have allowed language inciting to outrage and assassination to be used in their presence, and under their presidency, or have feebly protested when they ought to have closed the meeting or retired from it. Having complained of the conduct of a portion of the Irish priests I feel bound also to state what there is to be said in excuse for them. In the first place, some of them honestly believe that they have had a moderating influence upon the Laud Leaguers, who, but for their presence, would have gone to greater lengths. Then it must be remembered that the Irish priests are taken from the sons of the smaller farmers, and that they are the brothers and cousins of the persons whose interests they have been pleading for. I was told by a Catholic gentleman, not a landlord, that the Galway priests were the worst. I asked why, and he said because they were the sons of occupiers smaller than in other districts. Formerly many of the Irish
  750
  clergy were educated at St. Omer and Salamanca, where they were able to acquire more extended ideas and get rid of Irish prejudices. The greatest difficulty, perhaps, that impairs the position of the Irish priests is their dependence on their parishioners, and the necessity they are under of resorting alternately to cajolery or threats to obtain the moans of subsistence. Many of those who in 1869 took an opposite view, and who prevented the vote of your Lordships in favour of bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish priests from being carried out, must now regret that so good an opportunity was lost and thrown away of taking a stop half-way towards securing the independence of the priests, and of putting them less in the way of temptation to take up the part of political agitators. The Irish Bishops are much in the same case as their clergy as regards position. It was remarked at the Council of the Vatican, in 1869, that if a prize were given to non-Catholic Governments for their Bishops the Ottoman Government would have been first, for the Turkish Bishops all had the appearance of persons well to do in the world and accustomed to hold their own, whilst the English Government would have been last on account of the appearance of the Irish Bishops. If your Lordships admit that the conduct of a considerable portion of the priests has been bad, and if you admit the validity of the excuses for this conduct, it would follow that there must be blame for the present status and condition of the Irish priests, and that blame must be divided between the Government of this country and the Papal Court for not having approached one another, and concerted together in order to secure a better state of things. At the end of last year there was a great outcry from the North of Ireland against the language of the priests and the apparent indifference of their ecclesiastical superiors; but now even the Orangemen, who would refuse to the Pope the title of Vicar of Christ, must admit that he has acted in that spirit, and endeavoured to check agitation and to restore peace to Ireland. I now come to the Question to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, of which I have given Notice, with regard to the language of the Bishop of Elphin. I have no fear that it will be said that this or the language of the priests is a matter

  751
  of indifference; but the answer necessarily will be that my noble Friend has no means of communication with the Holy See. Why is this the case? Lord Odo Russell long tilled the post of unofficial agent at Rome with great credit to himself and utility both to his own and the Papal Government. Mr. Jervoise succeeded him, and I believe was equally successful in giving satisfaction. He was, however, recalled in the October of 1874. It is not generally known why this was done. It is to the credit of this country that I never heard it attributed to Protestant bigotry; it has generally been supposed that his recall was dictated by economy. I was informed at the beginning of last year at Paris that the reason for it was in order to please the Italian Government, in consequence of the bad relations then existing between that Government and the late Pope Pius IX. This reason, however, no longer exists, for the relations between the present Pope and the Italian Government are on an amicable footing. I will, therefore, venture to hope that the Secretary of State will be able and willing to inform your Lordships that he will take into his consideration the re-appointment of an agent like Mr. Jervoise at the Holy See. Unless this is done it will be impossible to do that which there is the greatest necessity for doing—namely, to improve the position and condition of the Irish clergy, in order that they may be better able to moralize the Irish people, and to eradicate the unfortunate tendency to resort to outrage and assassination. At the present day, and when the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is invited to take part in every public movement, it seems unnecessary to offer any arguments against unreasonable fears of Papal interference in this country. At the same time, I may state my belief that there is very much too little instead of too much attention given at Rome to Irish affairs. A conversation with the late Cardinal Antonelli gave mo the impression that he did not know much of Irish affairs, and that he was nearly as much tired of them as Her Majesty's Ministers may now well be. At that time also an almost incredible mistake in The Civilta Cattolica showed how little attention was being paid to Irish affairs, for that monthly official organ stated long after the Irish Church Act
  752
  had passed that the property of the Disestablished Church had been restored to the Roman Catholics; the mistake was probably owing to some telegram announcing the vote of your Lordships' House for bestowing glebes and manses on the Irish clergy, which was so unfortunately frustrated. I believe that the present agitation in Ireland will shortly subside; but if, unfortunately, that should not be the case, Her Majesty's Government have already been warned and threatened that they would have to lock up every priest in Tipperary and the Archbishop of Cashel, who would put themselves at the head of the Land League and carry out its operations. If such an event were to happen, and the priests so far forgot their sacred calling, it would be far better in the interests of religion and order that Her Majesty's Government should be in a position to obtain the deprivation or suspension of such priests from Rome than that they should be driven to proceed against such misguided priests in the manner contemplated by the agitator.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have not the honour of knowing Dr. Gillooly, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Elphin; but in consequence of the noble Lord's speech the other day, and of the Notice of the Question which he has just put, the right rev. Prelate has addressed to me a letter, dated the 8th of this month. It would have been a more convenient course if this letter had been addressed to some Irish Peer, who could have freely discussed with the noble Lord the bearing of Dr. Gillooly's Pastoral Letter on the previous letter addressed by the Pope to the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland. As it is, though the letter is rather long, I may as well read it without comment to your Lordships. It is in these terms—
  "Sligo, Feb. 8, 1881.
  "The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly presents his compliments to the Right Hon. Earl Granville, and takes the liberty of enclosing to his Lordship a copy of the Pastoral Letter to which reference was made, a few days ago, in the House of Lords, by Lord Stanley of Alderley, and to which the same noble Lord proposes to call the attention of the House on the 14th instant.
  "This letter, when read in its entirety and in connection with the letter of His Holiness the Pope, will, it is hoped, supply abundant evidence that the writer condemned in the future, as in the past, all violent and unlawful means of effecting the reform of the Land Laws

  753
  of Ireland; that he approved only such as were peaceful and Constitutional; and that 'the restraining influence of the clergy,' to which he says the Government and Legislature may forfeit their claim, must refer, not to any lawless acts of the people, hut only to the Constitutional agitation which the refusal of remedial measures may still necessitate.
  "This meaning and purport of the Bishop's observation will he made still more evident and unquestionable by the fact that up to the present time, and chiefly in expectation of the promised Government Land Act, the Bishop of Elphin and his clergy have refused to take part in the Land League organization or Land League meetings, although sympathizing most cordially with the people in the main objects of the League. The Bishop wished to intimate that their abstention from active co-operation with the people, and the restraining influence which such abstention had to a large extent undoubtedly exercised on their flocks, should not be reckoned on for a day in the event of adequate remedial measures being refused by Parliament. And he considered it his duty to hold out to his flock this hope of active guidance and co-operation, being convinced that the refusal of the expected Land Reform Bill would necessarily lead to a well-sustained Constitutional agitation, as being not only the safest and speediest means of bringing the Legislature to grant that reform, but as the only means of saving this country, if saved it can be, from the terrorism and crimes of secret associations.
  "The Right Rev. Dr. Gillooly begs to apologize for troubling Earl Granville with this communication; he docs so in the hope that it will enable his Lordship to satisfy the House as to the true meaning and purport of the misinterpreted letter, and in the hope, too, that the feeling expressed in that letter, and which he knows to he the common feeling of the body he has the privilege to belong to, may be taken into account by those who, under God, hold in their hands the destinies of the Empire."
  I have to add that I have not brought, nor is it my intention to bring, the language of the Pastoral Letter of Dr. Gillooly under the notice of the Holy See.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY—MEMORIAL OF "DUTCH BOERS."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL CADOGANasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the memorial contained in Blue Book [C.—2695] South Africa, stated to have been addressed by the Boers to Mr. Gladstone, was ever received by the Prime Minister; whether it was signed, and, if so, by whom; whether any answer was returned to it by the Prime Minister, and, if so, whether there was any objection to laying on the Table of the House such answer and any further corre-
  754
  spondence on the subject? The noble Earl said he should be able in a very few words to explain the character of the Memorial. It was sent by Sir Bartle Frere to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 8th of March, 1880, and was received on the 31st of March, before the late Government left Office. The document sent was only a copy of the Memorial which was proposed to be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was stated in one of the newspaper criticisms inclosed in the despatch that the Memorial was still lying for signature. It contained this language—
  "To the Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., &c.—We, the undersigned, who venture to address you, are men of European extraction living in the Cape Colony, and, with few exceptions, belong to the class generally known by the name of 'Dutch Boers.' Living scattered over great stretches of country, far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization, and occupied with the care of our flocks and herds, we have but a scant opportunity of becoming acquainted with the names and deeds of the great men of the British Empire. But yet, from time to time, the name of William Ewart Gladstone has reached even our isolated South African farms. We heard of him as one of those famed statesmen and orators across the water who, by the power of their genius, exercise so marked an influence on the destinies of their country. We heard of his magnificent eloquence, of his splendid services rendered in the cause of human liberty without distinction of race or creed, and of his undeviating loyalty of conscience, not only as a private Member of Parliament, but in that most difficult of all positions, a political Party Leader and a Cabinet Minister. We were told how he carried the first rays of hope into the hearts of a cruelly oppressed Italian people, how he had aided the cause of the poverty-stricken Irish peasant, and how he had made the whole of England ring with his indignant denunciations of the nameless atrocities perpetrated by a barbarous soldiery on a Christian population in the Turkish Empire. Sharing the feelings of a common humanity, we could not learn of these, your services in the cause of liberty, without feeling some responsive chord touched within us. And yet we would have hardly thought of addressing you, if we had not heard of late how the wrongs of even some few thousands of Dutch Boers—as many thousands of miles away—had called forth your sympathy and a decided expression of your disapproval and condemnation of the treatment to which they have been subjected."
  The Memorial gave their views of the annexation of the Transvaal—views which, he confessed, so far as he was able to judge them, might be described as erroneous. It referred to the speech uttered at Edinburgh by the right hon. Gentleman and another on the 70th,

  755
  anniversary of his birthday; and, having stated that they felt they would not appeal to him in vain, concluded by hoping that he might be spared for many years. When he read that Memorial—a copy of which was forwarded to them at the Colonial Office—he imagined that the original would have been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, and duly acknowledged. In the meantime, however, a change of Government took place, and the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister of England. Five months after the receipt of this Memorial he found it presented to Parliament, and in September last it found its place in a Blue Book circulated among Members of both Houses of Parliament. He could hardly believe that if it had not reached the Prime Minister duly signed and authenticated it would have found a place in a Blue Book of the character to which he alluded. It was quite evident that in discussions which might take place, and which must take place on the subject of the annexation of the Transvaal, they should have to be guided in the opinions they formed of the policy of the late and the present Government by the expressions which might from time to time be received of the opinions of the inhabitants of the Transvaal themselves. He could not but think, therefore, it would be unwise and prejudicial to the interests of the country that ex parte statements, such as those contained in this Memorial, should find their way into official Papers and Blue Books intended for the instruction of their Lordships' House, without anything being said as to whether they were duly signed, by whom they were signed, whether they were received by the person to whom they were addressed, and, if so, whether any answer had been returned, he had omitted to mention that in the same despatch which inclosed this Momorial were numerous criticisms upon it sent by Sir Bartle Frero. Here was one—
  "Our readers will find in our Dutch columns the text of an address to Mr. Gladstone to be signed by the people of the Cape Colony' in behalf of our Transvaal brethren, The idea was first started by The Patriot and supported by The Zuid Afrikaan; and seeing that the address makes a fair statement of the case of the Transvaal, without containing- anything calculated to make a wrong impression in England about the sentiments of the Colonists as regards the manner in which Native affairs have of late been conducted, we
  756
  cordially recommend our readers to sign it as readily as, in former days, they signed Memorials to Her Majesty the Queen in favour of the repeal of the annexation. We should rather like the present Imperial Ministry to rescind the annexation than to have the matter left to a Liberal Cabinet; but Mr. Gladstone may prove a most useful ally to the Capo Africanders."— Het Volksblad, February 28, 1880.
  Here was a criticism which showed that a different view had been taken—
  "Cape Town, Saturday, March 6, 1880.—Ministerial.—It was a happy thought to address to Mr. Gladstone that composition in choice English with which Dutch Boers, living scattered over great stretches of country, far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization, and occupied with the care of nocks and herds,' propose to enlist the sympathies of the English Opposition in behalf of the restoration to the inhabitants of the Transvaal of their so-called independence. Mr. Gladstone, when he undertakes a cause, undertakes it with all his might. He is as 'thorough' as the hapless Wentworth.…The Transvaal annexation may provide him with another article of impeachment, and although the surrender of the territory might be found to involve some sacrifice of Liberal principle, any stick will serve to boat a dog; and so the promoters of this remarkable document may have good hope of securing the great man's countenance. That it is a remarkable document no candid person who has taken the trouble to read it through will deny. It is remarkable, considering its asserted origin, in its literaryaspect. Seldom are scattered Boers occupied in simple pastoral pursuits found to possess such mastery of the English language as the Memorial exhibits. It may be answered that the original document was composed in the vernacular Dutch of the rural districts. But even thus the literary achievement would be no less remarkable. For the Colonists who use the vernacular Dutch are not generally credited with the copiousness of thought exhibited in the Memorial, or with the fervid interest it displays in the career of English statesmen. They are a homely people, and, like English folks of the same class, limited in their range of ideas. Travellers who visit them at their homesteads find them kindly, inquisitive, and loquacious; but their talk is of oxen and kindred subjects. They are not apt to discuss the characteristics of famed statesmen and orators across the water, the power of their genius, their influence on the destinies of nations, their magnificent eloquence, their splendid services rendered to the cause of human liberty. It is truly a remarkable document in its now revelation of the breadth and depth of inquiry and reflection, hitherto unsuspected, in the class of Dutch Boers living scattered over great stretches of country, and far removed from the busy centres of population and civilization. Remarkable also is it in some of its representations."—cape Time's.
  The main result, however, was that this Memorial had been presented to Parliament. It was forwarded in the month of March, and presented to Parliament in

  757
  September. He might add that another Memorial, written in May, and addressed to Mr. Gladstone, was duly answered by him in a letter of which they all approved, and was published and given to their Lordships' House in August. He did not understand why the other Memorial was detained a month later. It was to be hoped that the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would kindly inform the House whether any Correspondence had ensued upon this Memorial. He trusted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman received it, and either committed it to the waste-paper basket, or, perhaps, laid it on one side with the intention of making use of it at some time or other when the occasion should arise.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have communicated with my right hon. Friend Mr. Gladstone, and he says that, so far as he can remember, during the hurry of the Election, this address did not reach him, and that also, so far as he can remember, he did not send any answer to it. The reason that it appears in the Blue Book is that it was sent as an in closure in a despatch from Sir Bartle Frere; and as it was necessary to present that despatch, of course, the in closure was published with it. My noble Friend is anxious to know what value should be attached to it. He is as able to judge of that as I am. The document was received during the time that he was in Office, and when the information of the Colonial Office was at his complete disposal. It was transmitted by Sir Bartle Frere; and I apprehend that it is a document which expresses the opinion of a certain number of persons in South Africa. I am really quite unable to give my noble Friend any further information on the subject.
  EARL CADOGAN: I hope the noble Earl will clearly understand that the point I wish to put is this—that when it was received by us it was the copy of a document which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. When the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, and my noble Friend opposite became Secretary of State, they were able to ascertain the importance to be attached to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I was not able to form any opinion of its importance. The importance to be attached
  758
  to it is exactly that which may be ascertained by any person who reads it. It was a document prepared for the purpose of being sent home to Mr. Gladstone, and I do not attach any importance to it further than Sir Bartle Frere did. He has considered it as of sufficient importance to transmit it to this country; and Sir Bartle Frere having so regarded the document, I considered that his despatch being laid before Parliament this ought to be laid before Parliament with it.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE.—QUESTION.
  LORD NORTONasked the Lord President of the Council, When this year's edition of the Education Code will be laid on the Table; and, whether it will include the alterations he indicated as under his consideration last year, or some of them; and, if it is as yet only partially revised, when we may expect its complete revision?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that the Education Code had been laid on the Table of the House. It was being printed, and would be circulated either to-morrow or Wednesday. With regard to its contents, he had to state that, in accordance with the promise he gave their Lordships last year, he had, during the Recess, carefully considered the whole subject; but, considering that the Session last year was later than usual and this year it had commenced earlier, the Government had not had sufficient time to complete their inquiries. As their Lordships were aware, the Code was required to be laid on the Table within a certain number of days of their meeting, so that it was impossible that any material changes should have been made; and, as a fact, it only contained certain changes that were required by the Act that was passed regarding education last year. Their Lordships would remember that that Act contained certain important clauses for the purpose of reconciling the Factory Act with the Education Act, and which made it necessary to modify some of the regulations, and those had been made; but no other alterations had been made. The Government hoped to be able, in considering this important subject, to simplify the Code, and also to make it more effectual for the education of the people.

  759
  Having regard to the largo annual expenditure now voted by Parliament for elementary education, the Department thought it right that any change they made should be prefaced not only by experiment, but a very minute inquiry with regard to its financial effect; and they would eventually have to consult the Treasury on this important matter. All they desired was to improve the Code; and he did not think that they should have proposed many changes this year, even if they had been able to do so, because he thought it very undesirable to make frequent changes in the Code, which affected, more or less, all who were engaged in the great work of education. It was desirable, moreover, that notice should be given as long as possible before changes wore made; and, therefore, he should, before the close of the Session, lay upon the Table a Minute showing what alterations the Department proposed to make, so that they should have an opportunity of being considered, not only by their Lordships, but by all the various bodies interested in education.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.