Sitting of 23 February 1881

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading —Vivisection Abolition*[94],
Considered as amended —Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [90].

QUESTIONS.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—HOURS OF ADMISSION.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take into his consideration the advisa-

  1605
  bility of lighting the National Gallery, so as to allow our great collection of pictures to remain open to the public until 10 o'clock at night every week day throughout the year?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the responsibility for deciding as to lighting the National Gallery by night rests, in a great measure, with its Trustees, and I could not take any steps without their approval. It would certainly not be desirable to light it with gas. The Collection is far too valuable to justify the Trustees in exposing the pictures to any damage from the vitiated atmosphere, or from the risk of fire. With respect to the electric light, I do not think we have yet sufficient experience as to the best system of lighting, or as to its merits or defects, to justify me in advising the Trustees on the subject. I may add that I am carefully watching the improvements which are constantly being made in the system of electric lights with a view to its adoption in some others of the public buildings.

  AGRARIAN CRIMES (IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the report is true which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 19th instant, that the 20th Hussars, when passing through Athy, where they were billeted on the night of the 18th instant, committed a number of outrages on the unoffending inhabitants, knocked down a child, and pitched a man into the street, and marched through the streets uttering a peculiar kind of yell, and wanted to got their guns to clear the streets; and, if so, whether he would order steps to be taken to bring the offenders to justice?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have not yet been able to procure the information which the hon. Member asks for, and I must therefore ask him to postpone his Question for a day or two.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet obtained a Return of Agrarian Crime in Ireland during the first fortnight of the present month; and, if so, how soon he will lay it upon the Table of the House; and, whether he intends to withhold from the House until after his Irish Coercion Bill has
  1606
  passed beyond the cognizance of the House the detailed Return of Agrarian Crime in Ireland for the month of December, which was ordered by the House six weeks ago?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he did not think it was necessary to give fortnightly Returns. The Returns for last month would be laid on the Table in a few days. With regard to the detailed Return of Agrarian Crime for December, he had done everything he could to hasten its completion; and although it was not yet ready, he hoped it would soon be in the hands of Members.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, Would the right hon. Gentleman defer the third reading of his Coercion Bill until these Returns, upon which he had stated the Bill was founded, were in the hands of hon. Members, in order that they might form a correct judgment as to whether the Bill was necessary or not?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman could not expect it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I can and do expect it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—BILLS OF SALE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the fact, as reported in the "Standard" of the 18th instant, in an action of Wilson v. The National Mercantile Bank, Limited, that on the 24th of December last, three weeks after the making of a bill of sale, and before any instalment was duo upon it, the bank put into possession of a farmer's property 43 men, who remained in possession during Christmas, and forcibly took and killed a number of his sheep and consumed his provisions; and, whether money lenders are allowed to exercise such powers by the present Law; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Law so as to prevent the abuses arising from such freedom of contract?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he could not answer the Question of the hon. Member, because he had no knowledge of the case. He had not seen the report in The Standard, and could not be supposed to read all the reports pub-

  1607
  lished of legal proceedings. He might further say that he saw no necessity for any legislation on the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)— ARRESTS ATTHURLES.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question which was on the Paper yesterday with respect to a number of men who were sentenced at Thurles on the 22nd of January and sent to Nenagh Gaol. I wish to know, Whether it is true that they wore refused bail, and have been kept without food from early on Monday morning until the following morning?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think the Question was on the Paper yesterday; but, in any case, I will ask the hon. Member to postpone it until tomorrow, as it will require time to obtain the information.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to explain that the hon. Member who gave Notice of the Question sent me a letter which inclosed the Notice Paper of yesterday, and I understood from the letter that the Question was on the Notice Paper.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 90.]
  (Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt.)
  CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Order for Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, read.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY).—NOTICE OF MOTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it may be for the convenience of the House that I should state that I wish to give Notice of a Motion in relation to the Business of the House, contingent upon the possibility that the proceedings on the stage of Report of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill may not be finished to-day or to-morrow, before the hour named in my Notice. If they are finished before the hour named in my Notice to-morrow, of course that Notice will fall to the ground, and there-
  The Attorney General
  1608
  fore it would not be put. I do not propose to hand it in at this moment, but to hand it in before 6 o'clock, and I mention it now for the convenience of the House. If the proceedings are not finished today, I will, before 6 o'clock, hand in the Notice, which is as follows:—
  "That upon the Consideration of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, as amended this day (meaning to-morrow) at seven o'clock, any Amendments then standing upon the Notice Paper shall he put forthwith."
  And, together with that, I shall, in the same circumstances, move—
  "That the stage of the Third Reading commence immediately after the reception of the Report."
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
  Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "person accused of crime, and not as a convicted prisoner," in order to insert the words, "a first class misdemeanant," said, he introduced it for the purpose of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland once more to the question of the prison rules, as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was still far from satisfied with the assurances the right hon: Gentleman had given on the subject; and he wished to draw attention to the facts that were alleged to have taken place in connection with the Question he was going to ask on Friday, in reference to the treatment of a number of respectable men now confined in Nenagh Gaol. These persons were subjected to great privations and indignities; and if that were so before the passing of a Coercion Bill, it was likely that matters would be still worse under its operation. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give a personal assurance that whenever a complaint was brought before Parliament in regard to the treatment of a prisoner he would undertake to investigate it personally.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I rise, Sir, to Order. I wish to ask you if the hon. Member is in Order in illustrating his remarks by statements of what may be happening in the prisons of Ireland, when the facts are not before the House?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was merely putting the case hypothetically. What he said was, that, if certain things went on in Ireland, they had a right to ask the Chief Secretary to see that such things should be prevented, and he submitted that he was in Order in putting the case.
  MR. SPEAKER: I presume that the hon. Member intends to conclude with a Motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Certainly. I have already stated that I will do so, and I will at once bring it up to the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: If so, I am not called upon to interpose.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORconcluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words "person accused of crime, and not as a convicted prisoner," in order to insert the words "a first class misdemeanant,"—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsupposed they must consider this a serious Motion. He was, however, surprised at the hon. Member putting it, because the rules for the treatment of first-class misdemeanants were not so favourable as those for treatment of prisoners awaiting trial. He hoped the hon. Gentleman did not wish to get it carried, for, if it were, it would be found to work very inconveniently to the prisoners detained under the Act.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) not to press the Amendment in its present form. He (Mr. M'Coan) himself had an Amendment on the Paper on the same subject; but he withdrew it when, on examining the rules relating to untried prisoners, he had found that the latter were better treated than first-class misdemeanants. He would, however, suggest some change in the words proposed to be omitted, as they had no rules at present applying in terms to "persons accused of crime."
  MR. LEAMYsaid, no one would doubt the guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as far as he was himself concerned;
  1610
  and, no doubt, the Lord Lieutenant would observe any guarantees given by the right hon. Gentleman; but something more than this was required. Some opportunity should be given to hon. Members to know how the rules would be put in force, and the Government should give them some assurance that the rules respecting prisoners awaiting trial would be enforced, and not left to the discretion of the police and prison officials in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONinsisted on the necessity of a provision to that effect being inserted in the Bill. He was, therefore, not at all surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had brought forward the Amendment. He did not doubt the guarantee of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as far as the right hon. Gentleman was personally concerned; but considering what had happened at Thurles, whore persons who were only found marching around a grazing field were left 24 hours in gaol without food, and then told they were not to get their breakfast until they worked for it, he could not imagine what excess of tyranny might happen in reference to persons accused of crime after the passing of the Act. In addition to the treatment of prisoners, he thought they were bound to request some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that local tyrants would not be allowed to indulge their own personal vindictiveness upon the unfortunate prisoners over whom they might have control.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, with regard to the case at Thurles, referred to by the hon. Member, the House had only heard one side of it yet; and, besides, he was not responsible for what might have taken place. Under this Bill, a special responsibility was cast upon him to see that the prisoners were properly treated.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would withdraw his Amendment. The object he sought to secure was covered by the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that prisoners waiting for trial were treated better than first-class misdemeanants, and Irish Members had a strong position upon that statement. Whatever assurance the right hon. Gentleman gave the House he was sure to carry it out.
  MR. O'SULLIVANalso thought that the promise of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in regard to the prison rules, should be accepted. It would be a mistake to press the Amendment, and ho, for one, should vote against it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, in accordance with the personal request of his hon. Friends, he would withdraw the Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was quite right in asserting that first-class misdemeanants were not as well treated as prisoners awaiting trial, if the rules were carried out; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) begged to say that the rules were not observed, and he knew they would not be observed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. PARNELL)moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 27, after the word "rules," to insert the words—
  "Having special regard to the greater length of the possible duration of the imprisonment of persons detained under this Act than that of persons awaiting trial, and the necessity of permitting where possible the association in the daytime of the former."
  The hon. Member said, that the object of the Amendment would be readily perceived. Persons who, under the ordinary law, were awaiting trial would not be kept beyond a few weeks at most. If they were kept for four or five months, all the newspapers of the Kingdom would be ringing with the grievance; but persons under the Bill might be 18 months in prison, and a treatment that might be perfectly humane when applied for a few weeks would be altogether barbarous when extended over a long period of imprisonment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should give the House an assurance that persons detained under the Act would be treated differently from ordinary untried prisoners, and as well, at all events, as prisoners were treated under the Westmeath Act. It was absolutely necessary, besides being a great relief to them under the circumstances, that they should be permitted to mingle with each other in order to prevent insanity. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound to say that any prisoner arrested under the Act should have an opportunity of daily association with some persons of the same class in society as himself.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 27, after the word "rules," to insert the words "having special regard to the greater length of the possible duration of the imprisonment of persons detained under this Act than that of persons awaiting trial, and the necessity of permitting where possible the association in the daytime of the former."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T.P. O'Connor) is very exacting with regard to the regulations which are to be made. His last request is more so than any one I have yet heard. He says that we ought to secure to every person detained under this Act that he should have daily association with somebody in his own position in life. There have been, in the course of the debate, hints thrown out that persons of good position might possibly be arrested. They had not been thrown out on this side of the House, nor by me, or any of my Friends. Therefore, I do not at all endorse the probability. But supposing there was a person in position arrested, it would be rather hard upon the Government to have to arrest somebody else who had committed no crime, and who was not suspected of having done so, in order that the gentleman arrested might have someone to keep him company.[Laughter] I must really refer the House to the position in which the question of these rules was left. I stated that we had taken the rules with regard to prisoners awaiting trial, with the belief that they were, on the whole, the most favourable, after having compared them with the rules relating to first-class misdemeanants and those under the Westmeath Act. In the debate it was stated that these rules, to some extent, would depend upon the Visiting Committee, and we believed the Visiting Committee would act with perfect justice in the matter; but, in order to remove any possibility of misconception, we undertook to seriously consider the matter, taking into account the Westmeath rules, as well as the other rules, and to make fresh rules and put them on the Table as early as possible after they were made. I do not think we can do further than that, and I do not think the House will ask us to do so. I stated, in debate, that one of the facts we shall have to consider and take into

  1613
  account is that prisoners arrested under this Act would be detained longer than ordinary prisoners awaiting trial. The hon. Member has illustrated his statement by what he says is happening to certain prisoners confined in a prison in Tipperary. I must ask the House to remember that it is only a one-sided statement that has been made, and I am not prepared at present with the facts. I am not personally responsible for the management of the prison in Tipperary; but the hon. Member does not for a moment suppose that I admit the truth, and I think the House ought not to admit the truth, of the statement he has made, but I am quite willing to admit— in fact, I have admitted from the beginning—that the prisoners under this Bill will be more completely in the hands of the Irish Executive Government than prisoners generally awaiting trial; and that there is a responsibility attaching to us with regard to them that does not attach to us with regard to others. I cannot accept this Amendment.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYthought the Amendment very reasonable. Its principal object was to prevent the rules being misapplied by the local authorities. The persons arrested under the Act would not be criminals of the ordinary kind, or men guilty of any moral offence whatever. The House should remember that not only would their detention under the Act be much longer than that of ordinary prisoners awaiting trial, but, as a rule, they would be taken from an entirely different class. He did not mean socially, he meant morally. He did not think that, under the operation of the Act, there would be one of the professional criminal class arrested. There must be already quite sufficient power in the ordinary law to arrest a man who had committed a crime of the ordinary kind. Therefore, the persons who would be arrested under the powers which the ordinary law did not afford would be persons who would be guilty of no moral offence, who would be under no taint or odium in the country in which they wore arrested. He thought it was most important that men of that class should, as far as possible, be kept separate from the ordinary criminals who filled the gaols. There was every reason for making a marked distinction. It had been observed that one strong reason in Ireland why there was not that
  1614
  high respect for the operation of the law was, that the people were accustomed to see the application of the political law brought to bear against men of the highest moral character. When the population, especially those who had least education, observed that condition of things, they confounded the whole operation of the law with the political law. As he had said, the persons who probably would come under the operation of the Act would be guiltless of any moral offence; and, therefore, in the interest of law and order in Ireland, he hoped the clear distinction would be drawn. The confinement of such men in Irish prisons was, unhappily, nothing new; but, at any rate, it would be well to impress upon the popular mind the fact that such a distinction existed between the two classes of prisoners.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, the House ought not to allow an observation used by the hon. Member who had just sat down to pass unnoticed. He said that the persons who would be apprehended under the Bill would be guilty of no moral offence. In other words, it came to this, according to the hon. Member for Longford, that "treason-felony, treasonable practices, and crimes punishable by law, being acts of violence and intimidation," were not moral offences. He (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) protested energetically against such a doctrine being preached in that House, or to the people of Ireland.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYexplained that he had said the persons arrested would not, probably, be those who committed outrages, for those would be arrested under the ordinary course of law, but persons suspected of political offences.
  MR. FINIGAN,in supporting the Amendment, observed that they could well understand the want of comprehension of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), because he was so used to make monosyllabic orations in that House that he paid no attention to what was being said about him. There was some misunderstanding as to what they were aiming at in their Amendments to the Bill. If the Bill were carried out by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Finigan) would be sorry to assume that it would not be carried out with

  1615
  justice and humanity. But it would be neither of those who would take care that the rules were carried out. These rules would be looked into by a Visiting Committee, on which experience had taught the Irish people they must not place too much confidence. These words of the Amendment, if introduced, would he pointedly quoted to Governors of prisons and warders. Their attention would be specifically called to the fair treatment of prisoners. Without that they would translate the law for themselves, and the men had given no proof that they would interpret the rules in the interest of humanity and justice. All who believed that the Bill was to prevent, and not to punish crime should support the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had, in principle, conceded everything that the Amendment would give; and, as he (Mr. Biggar) understood it, the Amendment only amounted to a recommendation, and did not go into detail. It simply declared that certain things should be taken into consideration, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had already stated that these very things should he considered by the Lord Lieutenant. But the special advantage there would be in having the words embodied in the Act itself would be that they could be referred to, and there would be no room for controversy as to what really was the statement made. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) overlooked the fact that arrests would be made under the Bill upon suspicion, and surely there was no moral offence in being suspected. But, on the other hand, in Ireland, far from its being considered any moral offence, it would be considered an honour to be arrested under the Act. That was the real position, and it was well known that in past times persons charged with political offences had received the highest honours their countrymen could bestow.
  MR. T.D. SULLIVANobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed anxious that no impression should get abroad that persons guilty under this Act were guilty of any moral offence. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) maintained that persons arrested under this Act would be innocent of any moral crime. The Government, in making their arrests, should be
  1616
  careful whom they did arrest, for a selection of the men arrested under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would be made for the return of future Members to Parliament. The men arrested under the Act would be the most spirited and intelligent young men in the community. It was only the stupid men, of no spirit and no brains, who would be left untouched.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. T.D. SULLIVAN: I thought I was, Sir.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was jocular upon the remark of his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and excited the laughter of some hon. Members near him; but it ought to have been obvious that, when speaking of the association of prisoners of the same class, he referred not to the same grade, but to the same mental and moral class. That which he wished to provide by the Amendment was to spare to these men the pain and degradation of associating with ordinary criminals. The Chief Secretary for Ireland need not doubt of his finding company for his prisoners, for, if he followed the advice of Dublin Castle, he would have plenty of every class, except the landlord class. ["Question!"] So far as the Bill was merely a preventive to crime, its purpose would be served by the detention of prisoners; and he had a right to argue that further punishment should not be added. The object of the Amendment was perfectly reasonable. It only asked the Lord Lieutenant to have regard to one special fact—namely, that persons detained under the Act might be kept in custody much longer than untried prisoners under the ordinary law. If the Bill really was not intended to be vindictive, the punishment it involved ought to be mitigated. Therefore, it was the obvious duty of humanity to lighten the penalty of the imprisonment in the case of offenders under the Act. That penalty, to persons of sensitive organization, would be indefinitely aggravated by solitary confinement; and he appealed to the Government not to add to the penalty of detention the gratuitously cruel punishment of solitary confinement.
  MR. E. POWERsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said a rather extraordinary thing when he complained of being obliged to arrest someone to keep someone else company in prison. He (Mr. R. Power) did not think there would be any necessity for that; for if he carried out the provisions of the Bill there would be plenty of people arrested for other reasons. There was nothing so dreadful as solitary confinement. The Reports of the medical authorities in 1867 proved beyond a doubt that many men became insane from this cause. He would only ask, supposing a Member of the House were arrested, that that hon. Member should have the opportunity of conversing with others for certain hours in the day. It would be hard for the Government not to allow that. Take the case of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He humorously suggested, the other day, that he would be a little afraid of visiting his friends in Ireland under the Act. Well, supposing the noble Lord's fears were realized, and that he was arrested, and suppose that in the same prison to which he was committed there happened to be the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as an inmate. Surely, it would be very hard not to allow these two Gentlemen the opportunity of intercourse during some hours of the day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said he was not responsible for the gaols, and that was one reason for the Amendment. Suppose the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) were put into Tipperary Gaol, it would be found that the Visiting Committee would have altogether different tastes to the hon. Member, for they were taken from the landlord class, and would have all the feelings and prejudices of that class against the men under their charge by this Act. The hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had told the House that persons guilty of treason or treason-felony, or other crimes, should be punished, and with that he(Mr. R. Power) quite agreed; but the whole difference was that the persons arrested under the Bill would be merely suspected, and surely should not suffer as if they were proved guilty. The whole opposition of the Irish Members was based on that ground, and the right hon. Gentleman, without making any great concession,
  1618
  would only be displaying an amiable quality if he gave a favourable ear to the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the people of Ireland had had experience of Coercion Bills, and all they now wanted was, that if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not accept the Amendment, he would at least make some distinct statement which could be put upon record and referred to by the friends of the prisoners in case of irregularity on the part of any local prison authority. The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat facetious when he said that, in order to provide company for certain persons, it would be necessary to arrest persons in a similar grade. It was easy to make such remarks as that in the House; but would it not be much better if, instead of inflicting needless torture, he allowed the prisoners to choose such society as was available in the prison? All the difficulties would then be met. There was nothing unreasonable in allowing those men confined in prison for the same class of offence to associate with one another. They had no guarantee beyond the mere general promise of careful consideration as to what the treatment of the political prisoners would be. Government, no doubt, meant to treat the men well in all cases; but it was every day happening that irregularities did occur in gaols for which the Government could only express regret. It had been justly said that when an Amendment of this character was proposed the right hon. Gentleman indulged in vague generalities. He (Mr. Healy) could not understand why he should appear so reticent in making a distinct statement as to what would be the treatment of the prisoners.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the Venue of the trust on which the House was asked to accept the Bill appeared to have been changed, and the treatment of the prisoners was no longer to be taken on the trust reposed in the Government, whom the House did know, but on a trust to be reposed in the Irish Prison Board, whom it did not know. The constitution of the latter Board had been so changed that the people could not place confidence in it, hence the present demand on the part of the Irish Members for a distinct understanding with the Government. If a prisoner were sent to a gaol where there was no possibility of

  1619
  his friends visiting him, was it not all the more necessary that he should be allowed some intercourse with the other inmates of the gaol? The Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to give them a fair, honourable, and just understanding.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 29; Noes 154: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. PARNELL)moved as an Amendment, in page 1, line 28, after the word "Act," to insert the following words: —
  "Having regard to the desirability of securing dry, well-lighted, and suitably heated rooms for such prisoners, and as much exercise daily as they may desire, and association during the daytime with such other prisoners detained in the same prison under this Act as may be found desirable."
  He did not know whether he was justified in proceeding with his Amendment, seeing that the Government had not the decency to leave a single Representative of Ireland on the Treasury Bench; but that was only another instance of the contempt with which they treated the Irish Members. He welcomed the return to the House of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland; but he hoped that hon. and learned Gentleman would soon become acquainted with the Rules of the House, which forbade his standing up in his place, and interjecting stage asides to hon. Members opposite. Next, he was glad to perceive the bodily presence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he hoped that right hon. Gentleman would bend his great mind to the merits of the Amendment, and give the House something better than one of those stereotyped and hackneyed replies which they were accustomed to hear from him. They did not want to be told that the Lord. Lieutenant would look after this and every other matter, and that they might trust to his Excellency to secure for prisoners under the Act dry, well-lighted, and suitably heated rooms. It Was their duty to leave as little as possible to the Lord Lieutenant, who had too much to do with levees and drawing-rooms to attend to such inferior matters. Besides, if his Excellency could not secure dry, well-lighted, and suitably heated rooms for the entertainments at Dublin Castle, he would probably find it rather difficult to secure them for pri-
  1620
  soners under the Act, unless he wore bidden to do so by the voice of Parliament. With regard to the question of association during the daytime, the right hon. Gentleman, in a tone of gifted jocosity, pretended to assume that what he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) meant was that if one Member of Parliament were put in prison it would be necessary to put another in to keep him company. But that was not what he meant, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knew. What he meant was, that they were bound to put him in such a place that he would have the association of persons in the same class of society as himself. A prisoner under the Act ought not to be detained in a local prison amongst pickpockets and murderers, and neither ought he to be subjected to the horrors of solitary confinement. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put off his lighter mood, and treat this question with becoming gravity.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating appeals to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in almost the same language as those which he has already addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in supporting the previous Amendment. I must caution the hon. Member that if he persists in that line of argument I shall have to call upon him to discontinue his speech.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and he would endeavour to vary the language of his remarks, so that he might succeed in reaching the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in another way. All he wanted was that the right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking to the House that a prisoner under the Act should not be placed in such circumstances as would amount to solitary confinement. Failing to obtain that, he should proceed to a division on the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 28, after the word "Act," to insert the words "having regard to the desirability of securing dry, well-lighted, and suitably heated rooms for such prisoners, and as much exercise daily as they may desire, and association during the daytime with such other prisoners detained in the same prison under this Act as may be found desirable."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The question it involved had been considerably discussed in Committee, and the only assurance he could give on that subject now was the same that he had given to the Committee—namely, that the Irish Executive would make the best rules they could possibly frame, consistently with safe custody for the prevention of suffering on the part of those who might be detained under the Bill. It had been said, on more than one occasion, that these persons would be political prisoners. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) entirely disavowed that assertion, as he did not see how it could be possible to call a man who might be arrested on suspicion of burning ricks or maiming cattle a political prisoner. Nevertheless, he admitted that they ought not to lose sight of the fact that they would be prisoners arrested on reasonable suspicion, and not prisoners who had been tried and convicted, or who were awaiting trial by jury. The utmost he could do was to repeat the assurance that the Government would look most carefully to this subject, and he thought they had already proved that it was their intention to do this. They had taken the best prison rules they could find — rules which he believed were more favourable than any others. He alluded to the Westmeath Rules, which had been allowed to have worked very well, and which provided for association; but he could not undertake to provide, by any special stipulation, for what was to be done in the matter.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman could not be regarded as in the least degree satisfactory. They could only be regarded as satisfactory by those who had confidence in the Government, which the Irish Members had not. The mere vague assurance that the Government would do the best they could was on a par with the vague suspicion upon which persons would be arrested. It had not been asserted that the persons arrested under the Act would be political prisoners. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Over and over again.] Some would be political prisoners, others would not. Where so large a proportion of innocent persons would be arrested, the Government were bound to see that their health would not be injured, nor their reason impaired.
  1622
  That was the more necessary, as they knew that prisoners in their gaols had been deprived of health and reason by the slow torture of solitary confinement. It should be borne in mind that this was merely a preventive Bill, and its object was not to punish the prisoners who would be detained. Therefore, the full extent of its operation would be reached when the safe custody of the prisoners was secured, and in that case he failed to see how the Government could hesitate about laying down in the Bill the securities which the Amendment would provide. Anything like solitary confinement in these gaols should be resisted to the uttermost, and the Irish Members required such a full and definite assurance on the point that no ingenuity of the Government would enable them to recede from it afterwards.
  MR. HEALYdisagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his objection to the application of the term "political prisoners" to the prisoners who would be detained under the Bill. He would admit that a man charged with houghing cattle or burning ricks could not be a political prisoner; but the conduct of the Government in past times, in charging political prisoners with ordinary crimes, did not produce confidence in Irish Members. A man might be a political prisoner, and might have it written down against him that he had houghed cattle or burnt hayricks. With their experience of what Irish policemen were trained to swear, as a Dublin magistrate had stated, they denied that the suspicion under which people might be arrested would be reasonable. What opportunity would the prisoner have of showing that the endorsement on his warrant was not true? So long as the police had the power of placing on the warrant whatever charge they pleased, they could not accept the assurances of the Government. Hon. Members might complain of the course Irish Members were pursuing, and say that it was inconvenient and unusual; but if their course was unusual, the Bill was unusual. He knew, also, that it was very little use advancing arguments in favour of this reasonable Amendment, for the Members who had set their minds against justice to Ireland paid no attention to them. There were very few pre-

  1623
  sent now, and they did not care a button for questions materially affecting the liberty of the Irish people.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that he is wandering from the Amendment before the House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was only making an apology to the House. What objection could there be to put into the Bill words which would not bind the Government more than the right hon. Gentleman stated the Government were willing to agree to? All the right hon. Gentleman said was, that they must trust the Government; but they did not trust the Government. The Government was always doing the "best it could" for Ireland, and was always causing dissatisfaction.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating the same arguments with such tedious iteration that I must call upon him to resume his scat.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that as the Amendment was nothing more than a mere direction to the Lord Lieutenant it would not be obligatory on him; and, therefore, he did not see why the Chief Secretary for Ireland should refuse to accept it. Persons arrested on suspicion, of whom a large number would be innocent, being the victims of private malevolence and spite, ought to be treated better than ordinary prisoners. Unless care was taken that the prison rules should be modified, those men would be subjected to harsher treatment than ought to be inflicted on them. Besides, it should be remembered that many of them would be kept in prison for a longer time than persons convicted of ordinary crimes.
  MR. BARRY,in supporting the Amendment, argued that the assurance given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Government would do their utmost to secure fair and reasonable treatment for prisoners afforded no guarantee whatever that such treatment would be extended to them. The unsatisfactory results which followed similar assurances under the last Coercion Act showed that something more definite than vague assurances were necessary to insure proper treatment. He would refer hon. Members to the case of a friend of his own, to show the necessity for some definite guarantee being given for the good treatment of prisoners.
  1624
  This friend was detained in Kilmainham Gaol for 19 months under the last Act. He was a tall, powerful, and healthy man; but he came out of prison a perfect wreck—broken in health and in mind. This state of health, he stated again and again, was the direct result of the repeated cold she experienced in prison. He made representations again and again to the prison authorities that he was insufficiently clothed, and that the cell was insufficiently warmed; but not the slightest notice was taken of his representations. The treatment of the prisoners was entirely in the hands of the Visiting Committee, who were magistrates and landlords, and they were not likely to look with a lenient eye upon persons suspected of agrarian offences. Therefore, no matter what their sufferings might be, or how unhealthy their cells might be, there were very small hopes indeed that any notice would be taken of any representations that might be made on the subject. For those reasons, having in view the many cases of cruelty that took place under the last Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, he would earnestly urge on the Chief Secretary to give some assurance that this Amendment, or something tantamount to it, would be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the case of harsh treatment mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down showed conclusively that there was something more required than the vague assurance given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The treatment of the prisoners, no matter how humane his intention might be, would be entirely out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he thought that the assurance should be embodied in the Act, so that it should become essential on the officials to take care that the thing was done, and that they should be open to statutable rebuke if they did not take care, in order to prevent a recurrence of the cruelties practised in Irish prisons under the last Coercion Act of 1867. He had the greatest respect for the new Rules; but he could not help pointing out that the great statesman Fox had declared that it was only by incessant repetition that the House of Commons could be impressed with the justice of any particular cause.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had brought forward an Amendment similar to this in Committee; but it had been ruled out of Order. He considered it one of the most important Amendments on the Paper, and it certainly was the most humane. In 1866 and 1867 the prisoners then detained in gaol were only allowed one and a-half hours for exercise out of the 24, and the exorcise, which consisted in walking round a ring in single file, was given in such a grudging and narrow spirit that it became almost useless. Then the prisoners were not allowed to associate with their fellow-prisoners. He knew an instance where two men, for asking the loan of a book from another prisoner, got 48 hours' confinement on bread and water. Such cruelties as that ought not to be repeated. There were many men at that time who went into prison in good health and strength, and who came out of it not only with the loss of their health, but with the loss of their mind, so cruel and exasperating was the treatment they received.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that a man would be confined for 22 out of the 24 hours in his cell, which was generally damp and ill-lighted, there being only a small window barred over. The bedclothes were generally damp, and this brought about rheumatism. All this showed the necessity for having the cells properly heated, next winter being likely to turn out as severe as the Arctic winter of this year. It was also necessary that sufficient time should be allowed for exercise, because most of the persons who would be arrested under the Act were young men of active habits, to whose healthy existence suitable exercise was indispensable.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he did not ask for any express stipulations in favour of particular prisoners; but the powers of the Lord Lieutenant might be enlarged, so that the condition of prisoners should be ameliorated when circumstances permitted, and where discipline did not interfere. In 1866 the present Mr. Justice Lawson said, in that House, that untried prisoners ought not to be subjected to any undue or improper restrictions not necessary to their safe custody. He considered that prisoners arrested under the Act were entitled to more lenient treatment than untried prisoners, because there was a primâ facie
  1626
  case against the latter. He would refer hon. Members to an extract from a speech made by Dr. Robert M'Donnell at a meeting held in Dublin some time since, in which he strongly condemned the rigid discipline and complete isolation to which political prisoners were subjected in Mountjoy while awaiting trial. Dr. M'Donnell, who was the friend of the Government and the opponent of law breaking and disorder, characterized this as impolitic and unwise. He said the unnecessarily severe treatment of untried prisoners did great mischief, not alone by impairing their health, but, after the dismissal from prison, it stimulated the spread of disaffection throughout the land. He (Mr. Finigan) hoped, in order to prevent that, that the Government would agree to the Amendment, the object of which was to give the Lord Lieutenant power to interpret the Bill to the benefit of the prisoners. The objection of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Amendment was to be found in his promise to see that the prison rules were carried out in a modified form.
  MR. DALYdid not intend to occupy the time of the House for many minutes; but he wished to point out to the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was really the object of the proposed Amendment. The object was simply to secure to prisoners, who might be thrown into prison for a long period, such an amelioration of their condition as would tend to the preservation of their health and sanity. The Irish Members only asked the Government to give the persons arrested under the powers of the Bill such conditions as would relieve the tedium of their imprisonment, and prevent them losing their minds. After an untried prisoner had been in prison six weeks, he had either gained his liberty, or been convicted at the gaol delivery of Assizes. The case of a prisoner who might be thrown into prison under the Bill was, however, a totally different one, for a prisoner under the Bill might be kept in prison, without any offence being alleged against him, for a year and a-half. He asked whether it was not reasonable that the Irish Members should endeavour, even at the risk of repeating again and again the same arguments, to secure for their fellow-countrymen, who might be arrested under the Bill, that they should be kept in a state that would not

  1627
  be dangerous either to their bodily health or their mind.
  MR. METGEcommented upon the hardship of the conditions of ordinary imprisonment to a man of education and intellectual activity, as many of those arrested under this Act would be. A case had been brought before them in which a man had died a horrible death from the insufficient ventilation of his cell, and the defects of the prison in which this occurred were still unremedied. Men had been driven to the verge of insanity under similar Acts, and it was the duty of Parliament to take care that such cases of cruelty did not occur again. He would not plead for any special immunity for persons who committed murder from behind hedges, and inflicted sufferings on dumb animals; but he believed that the majority of persons arrested under the Act would be men who would not be guilty of any crimes, and therefore he felt that the Irish Members should regard it as an absolute duty to repeat every argument they could as long as they hoped to obtain any redress.
  Ms. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the repetition of tedious arguments is against the Rule of the House on urgent Business.
  MR. METGE,resuming, quoted the opinions of Dr. M'Donnell in reference to the frightful torture inflicted on prisoners by the absence of air, and hoped the Government would do nothing to render such torture possible in the case of persons arrested under the Act.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not the privilege of hearing the speeches of some of his Friends, and therefore he was afraid he would repeat what had been said already. He could not conceive that the Government would refuse so vital an Amendment as that offered to the House now.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 41; Noes 269: Majority 228.—(Div. List, No. 80.)
  MR. DAWSONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 30, to the effect that the prison rules to be framed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Act should be laid on the Table of the House within seven days from their being framed, instead of within 14, as provided by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 30, to leave out the word "fourteen," in order to insert the word "seven,"— (Mr. Redmond,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he considered 14 days to be a very reasonable time for the purpose referred to.
  MR. FINIGANobserved, that it was hard to say what a reasonable time might be. He was astonished that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not display more courtesy and policy in his replies. He should give a better reason for refusing to accede to the Amendment. They had heard no argument whatever in favour of the number of days mentioned in the Bill, and, for his part, he considered seven days to be more reasonable.
  MR. SEXTONthought the Amendment would be a decided improvement to the Bill. If the regulations were to be submitted to Parliament at all, they ought to be submitted in the shortest convenient period, and an interval of seven days would be quite ample.
  MR. BIGGARheld they should have the earliest opportunity of considering these rules. The Government in this, as in all other matters with respect to the Bill, were most unreasonable. They seemed determined to act contrary to the rules of reason and common sense.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 276; Noes 36: Majority 240.—(Div. List, No. 81.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for New Ross. His Amendment cannot be put, as it relates to the new prison rules. The House has now settled the provisions of the Bill with regard to those rules, and no Amendment relating to the subject can now be entertained.
  MR. DAWSON (for Mr. HEALY)moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 32, at end of sub-section (2), and "when Parliament is not sitting such regulations shall be published in the Gazette."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would assent to the proposal if it was so framed as to let the Amendment read—

  1629
  "And when Parliament is not sitting such regulations shall within fourteen days be published in the 'Dublin Gazette.'"
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to,
  MR. FINIGANmoved an Amendment in page 2, line 5, providing that the place where, and the hour when, the warrant was executed should he specified. He could not conceive that the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have any valid objection to the Amendment, in as much as it merely enabled the House to judge of the mode in which warrants were carried out. It was as well that the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in Ireland, who, in the main, would carry out the warrants, should know that their conduct would be the subject of notice by the House of Commons, because that might have the effect of deterring them from arresting people at unseemly hours and places.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, after the word "detained," to insert the words "and of the place where and the hour when the warrant was executed."— (Mr.Finigan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, if the Amendment were accepted, they would be able to be certain that no unnecessary domiciliary visits would be made at night, when families would be disturbed; that no unnecessary terror should be provoked, and that the House should have evidence that the arrests were executed by day. With regard to the place where the arrests were made, the right hon. Gentleman had made something like an engagement that the prisoners should be confined in the local prisons in certain cases, and that consideration should be given to the question whether a person should be confined in a local or central prison. He would like to have some means of checking to what extent the Government carried out that arrangement, and they would have a certain measure if the Amendment were adopted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdenied that he had ever made the engagement the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) re-
  1630
  ferred to, that persons should be confined in local prisons. If he had done so, he thought some objections would have been made to it; but he made no arrangement one way or the other. He simply said that the Government would consider the advantages of separate prisons for the bettor accommodation of prisoners. He could not agree to the Amendment. It was a mere matter of detail, and the arguments by which the suggestion was supported did not commend it to his mind. He thought the Executive ought to have full discretion as to the most convenient time and place for the arrest of suspected persons.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought there was little in the Amendment to which the Government could object, and hoped that in the interests of humanity these warrants would only be executed in the hours of daylight.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 39; Noes 281: Majority 242.—(Div. List, No. 82.)
  MR. HEALYmoved in page 2, line 9, at the end of sub-section (3), words to the effect that the list of persons arrested to be laid every month before the House should show the date of the arrest, the period of detention, the residence of each person arrested, with the rateable value of his house, if a householder, and his profession or calling.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 9, at "end of sub-section (3), to add the words" such list shall show the date of arrest, the period of detention, the residence of each such person, with the rateable value of his house if a householder, and his profession or calling."—(Mr Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was unable to accept the whole of the Amendment, the principle of which already had been discussed in Committee.
  MR. SEXTONremarked that the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that the subject had been already debated. His hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had moved an Amendment in Committee, but the Government gave no answer to it. He (Mr. Sexton) therefore regarded the matter raised as virtually new ground. Numerous cases might arise, where poor persons were arrested

  1631
  and their families were cast upon public charity. The information asked for would afford the means of arriving at a conclusion as to the needs of the families of the arrested. He was exceedingly anxious that the Representatives of the people should have some method such as would be afforded by this information of checking the acts of the Boards of Guardians, of whom he professed some distrust.
  MR. LEAMYmaintained Parliament had a right to know the condition of the people arrested for trying to overthrow the Queen's Government in Ireland, or for the other offences comprehended within the Bill. A mere nominal list, which did not state the position in life or the residence of the person arrested, would be absolutely valueless. He was also surprised at the Chief Secretary for Ireland not accepting the Amendment with regard to the period of detention. Suppose an arrest were made on the 8th of the month, the list containing that arrest would not be seen for a month afterwards. They had heard a great deal in the course of the discussion about certain disturbed districts, and they wanted to know whether the arrests took place in those districts or not?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAalso supported the Amendment, being of opinion that the giving a list of surnames only, which were common in every district of Ireland, would be a mere mockery as a guarantee of the least respect for the liberty of the subject. For instance, in the case of arrest of John Ryan, there were hundreds of places whore there were persons of that name. Therefore, taking that fact into consideration, he thought sufficient particulars should be given to enable the identity of each man arrested to be established.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYthought that if the list was not to be a mere sham, the residence and calling, at all events, of the individuals arrested should be given. If it did nothing else, it would afford the means of releasing innocent men from detention.
  MR. FINIGANdid not think that the right hon. Gentleman had adduced any good arguments againt the Amendment. Probably the Chief Secretary for Ireland was afraid to adopt it, in case it should turn out that the crimes were not committed by the so-called village
  1632
  ruffians, but by respectable shopkeepers and farmers. Such a Return might also prove that the opening statements of the right hon. Gentleman were unfounded. He therefore trusted that hon. Members would, in the interests of justice, insist upon a list being laid before the House which would show, not only the particular crime, but the social status of the person arrested. He did not believe that the Bill was only intended to prevent crime. He believed that it was intended as a measure of despotism for the cover of another still more hideous despotism.
  MR. DAWSONthought that some of those arrested might be, not village tyrants nor bloodthirsty ruffians, but "Cromwells, guiltless of their country's blood." He wished to point out that the Amendment might almost be regarded as the logical sequence of the concession which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had just made; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to it.
  MR. DALY,in supporting the Amendment, said, that while the operation of it would cause only a little trouble to Government officials, it would, on the other hand, give an additional chance to persons arrested under the Bill to prove their innocence. If some such provision as that was not introduced into the Bill, much confusion would be entailed in carrying it into operation. For instance, there were three John Dalys in the City of Cork, and suppose it was stated that John Daly, of such a street, was arrested, a friend at a distance would know which Daly it was; but if the particulars sought by this Amendment were placed opposite his name, his identity would be established at once, and his friend at a distance might be able to produce evidence which would prove him innocent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant. Was there any reason why he should be deprived of the benefit of the evidence?
  MR. BARRYsaid, it would be simply impossible to identify anyone unless these particulars were given. He would remind the House that under the last Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act onepoor unfortunate fellow named Casey was detained in prison for three and a-half years, because, under the circumstances, no one could identify him.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that in the County Cavan, where there were so many Bradys and O'Reillys, if particulars of this description were not given, the result would be that instead of the parties who were suspected by the Lord Lieutenant being put in gaol, a great many people would be imprisoned who were not suspected of any crime at all, but who happened to bear the same name as someone who was suspected. The same result would occur in the County Monaghan, where there were so many Mackennas and M'Mahons; and the County Fermanagh, where there was an endless number of Maguires. It was also most desirable that it should be known whether or not the person so arrested really lived in a proclaimed district or not.
  MR. E. POWERalso supported the Amendment, and showed the difficulty of identifying the large number of Powers that lived in his county, unless some such means as that proposed were adopted. The right hon. Gentleman ought to put the same construction upon a reasonable Amendment as he did upon a reasonable suspicion, and agree to this Amendment.
  Question put,
  The House divided: —Ayes 36; Noes 303: Majority 267.—(Div. List, No. 83.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 2, after sub-section (3), a new sub-section, the wording of which was in accordance with what he had stated in Committee he would do. The object of the subsection was to secure that the arrest of any person under the Bill should be re-considered periodically—every three months.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, after sub-section (3), to insert a new subsection—
  (4.) On the expiration of a period of three months after the arrest of each person detained under this Act, and so from time to time on the expiration of each succeeding period of three months while such person is detained, the Lord Lieutenant shall consider the case of such person and decide thereon; and the decision of the Lord Lieutenant in that be half shall he certified under his hand, or the hand of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, to each Clerk of the Crown, by whom a copy of the warrant under which such person shall he detained shall he filed in his public office, under this Act, and each such Clerk of the Crown
  1634
  shall record such decision by indorsement on the copy of the warrant so filed in his office.—(William Edward Forster.)
  Question proposed, "That the new sub-section be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the sub-section, so far as it went, would undoubtedly be an improvement to the Bill; but, unfortunately, it only went a small way. The investigation by the Lord Lieutenant would be merely formal, unless steps were taken to assure that the Lord Lieutenant should examine all the evidence properly relevant to the case. He, therefore, asked from the right hon. Gentleman some assurance that the prisoner and his legal representatives would be enabled to bring before the Lord Lieutenant evidence to show his innocence. He would suggest that after the words "decide thereon," the right right hon. Gentleman should insert—
  "And each and every such person and his legal representative shall he enabled to bring facts and arguments before him."
  Unless some such Amendment were made, the proposed review of an arrested person's case would be illusory.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANdid not think the Government could refuse the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo. Unless the arrested person had an opportunity of proving his innocence, if he really was innocent, the inquiry into his case once every three months, as suggested by the Chief Secretary, would be a cruel mockery, that any Government should be ashamed to perpetuate.
  MR. CALLANthought the matter would be met by associating the Privy Council with the Lord Lieutenant in the investigations. He would, therefore, suggest the insertion of words in the sub-section providing that the Lord Lieutenant should act "by and with the advice of the Privy Council."
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

  VIVISECTION ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, Bill for the total abolition of Vivisection, ordered to he brought in by Sir EAEDLEY WILMOT, Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY, and Mr. FIRTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 94.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.