Sitting of 4 July 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 3] reported—Bombay Civil Fund [Revenues of India]*.
Ordered—First Reading—Bombay Civil Fund* [225].
First Reading—Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* [224].
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Finchley, &c.)* [219]; Beer Adulteration [82] [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157–226] [Twenty-fourth Night]; Allotments [90–227].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [176]; Baths and Washhouses Act Amendment* [201].

PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE KILROSS RIOTS—THOMAS RUSSELL.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that Thomas Russell, one of the young men sentenced to fine and imprisonment on account of the Kilross riots, was placed a second time on the plank bed in the Kilkenny Prison, notwithstanding the pledge given by Mr. Attorney General, that none of those prisoners would be placed on the plank bed a second time for that offence?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, when a person is sentenced for separate offences to separate though consecutive terms of imprisonment, each imprisonment is in law a distinct punishment, and the original Rules for prison discipline are applied to each as a separate punishment. In order to obviate repetition of the plank bed in such cases, the Prisons Board in April framed a new Rule providing in effect that such consecutive sentences should for prison discipline be treated as one term of imprisonment, so that the prisoner should be placed only once on the plank bed, and when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, in my absence, answered the hon. Member's Question to which he refers in this Question, it was, of course, assumed that the new Rule would be sanctioned and promulgated immediately. It was

1383
subsequently sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, but before it was promulgated by the Governor of Kilkenny Prison, Thomas Russell had been dealt with under the original Rules. Of course, this will not occur again under the new Rule to which I have referred.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA—MESS EXPENSES.
SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will apply to the Auxiliary Forces the principles of economy and the checks to extravagance which he has introduced into the Line?
MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; a confidential Circular about mess expenses in the Militia was issued last March, and I hope it will have the desired effect. If not, a General Order will be issued. Of course, when Militia battalions are embodied, they come under the provisions of the General Order of the 23rd of June. I may say that a Militia subaltern's total contributions to regimental funds will not be allowed to exceed £10.

CRIME (IRELAND)—AGRARIAN OFFENCES (STATISTICS).
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give the House any information as to the number of cases in which persons have been committed for trial on account of the murders or more serious agrarian outrages reported in Ireland during the months of April, May, and June, 1882, or have been summarily punished for minor agrarian outrages; why, since 1st May 1882, the powers of arrest and detention conferred upon the Irish Government by "The Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881," have only been exercised in the seven cases stated by him to the House, and not with reference to any of the other murders and serious crimes, for which no one has been made amenable to the ordinary law; and, in how many of the seven cases in question the warrants were signed by the present Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, or by himself?
MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the first portion of this Question, the Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that to enable him to furnish the information asked for, he must com-
1384
municate with the County Inspectors throughout Ireland, and that it will take eight or ten days to collect the information. I have requested him to take immediate steps for doing so. With regard to the second portion of the Question, the Lord Lieutenant has not hesitated to use the Protection of Person and Property Act for the purpose of preventing murder and maintaining order on all occasions when he was recommended by the authorities in charge of the district to use it. With regard to the other part of the Question, I may say that in three of the seven cases which have been referred to as having occurred since the 1st of May the warrants were signed by the present Lord Lieutenant. In the other four cases I presume they were signed by the late Chief Secretary. The three persons who were arrested under warrants signed by the present Lord Lieutenant were arrested on reasonable suspicion of shooting and wounding a farmer named Trimble in the County Cavan.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I will repeat the first part of my Question in a week or ten days. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether there is any truth in the telegram which has been published to the effect that 19 persons have been arrested in the district of Loughrea this morning under the Act on suspicion of having participated in the crime recently committed there?
MR. TREVELYAN: I have not received a telegram to the effect that any arrests have been made; but I know that if these arrests will conduce to the maintenance of law and order the Lord Lieutenant would not scruple for a moment to make them.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE SOUTH DUBLIN UNION WORKHOUSE.
MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many paupers and others were prosecuted by the Guardians of the South Dublin Union for offences committed in the workhouse, or in connection with the property of the Guardians, from 1st January 1879 till 1st January 1882; how often the master was assaulted in the discharge of his duty; and, how many officers were dismissed for different reasons during the same period?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that it will take some little time to com-

1385
pile the information asked for in this Question from the books and records kept at the workhouse. If the hon. Member will put the Question into the form of a Return, he can have it unopposed.

LICENSING ACTS (WALES)— PUBLICANS' LICENCES.
MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Liverpool Daily Post," headed "Welsh Publicans and the English Language;" and, if he is aware of any Statute which makes a knowledge of the English language a necessary qualification for the holding of a publican's licence in Wales?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he was informed that the paragraph referred to was entirely incorrect.

INDIA—IMPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVE OILS—RE-SHIPMENT OF PETROLEUM ILLEGALLY LANDED.
MR. ECROYDasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in the "Times" telegraphic intelligence, that a large quantity of petroleum, illegally landed some time ago on the banks of the Hooghly, and afterwards, by official direction to the Commissioner of Police, ordered to be trans-shipped within seventy-two hours, still remains, to the serious danger both of the shipping in the river and houses in the neighbourhood; and, whether the order for its trans-shipment has been suspended or withdrawn; and, if so, if he will state why?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he was not aware whether the order for re-shipment of the petroleum had been suspended, or whether it had been withdrawn. He had ordered a telegram to be sent, asking that the order for re-shipment should be postponed until Professor Abel's Report had been received. He was inclined to think it had not been complied with, because the petroleum had been re-shipped. He would lay upon the Table of the House the telegraphic Correspondence, and also the despatches sent to the Government of India, which would place the House in possession of the facts so far as the Government knew them.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—RUSSIAN DUTIES ON WORSTED YARNS.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have information that the Russian Government are about to propose an increase of the duty on the importation of worsted yarns; and, if so, what is the proposed increase, and, when the new tariff will come into operation?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: By the new Russian Tariff, which has been promulgated and comes into force on the 13th instant, it is proposed to raise the duty on woollen and worsted yarns undyed from 4 roubles 95 copecks to 7½ roubles per poud, and on the same dyed from 4 roubles 95 copecks to 9 roubles per poud.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE AT ROCHESTER.
MR. PASSMORE EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the County Court Judge who sits at Rochester commences each sitting at eleven o'clock, and rises shortly after one o'clock to catch the train to go home in a remote part of Kent; whether he is aware that these unusually short sittings cause delay and expense to parties attending the Court; and, whether he will inquire into the matter, with a view to obviate the grievance complained of?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, the Home Office had no authority over the County Court Judges; but if the hon. Member would put the statement into the form of a complaint, he would forward it to the Lord Chancellor.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN BARTON AND MR. HUGH M'INTYRE.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Captain Barton, a deputy lieutenant and justice of the peace for the county of Fermanagh, has resorted to violent measures against Mr. Hugh M'Intyre, Poor Law Guardian, of Cliffoney, county Sligo, in consequence of a dispute at law between Captain Barton and Mr. M'Intyre re-

1387
specting rights of fisting in the Bunduff river; whether, on the 16th May last, Captain Barton, accompanied by a police constable, two soldiers, and five other men, went from Captain Barton's to Mr. M'Intyre's side of the river, proceeded to remove a fishing shoal, the property of Mr. M'Intyre, and continued to do so until warned by Mr. M'Intyre that they were violating his legal rights; whether, on the 23rd May, four days after Mr. M'Intyre had served summonses for trespass and damages, Captain Barton, accompanied by two soldiers and five civilians, again proceeded to remove the shoal and damage the fishery; whether, on that occasion, Mr. M'Intyre struck out of the hand of one of the civilians a burning coal, which he was about to apply to a fuse attached to a charge of dynamite, placed close to Mr. M'Intyre's fishing pier, and whether, on being questioned, he admitted he had received the dynamite from Captain Barton; whether, a third time, on the 25th May, five men in Captain Barton's employment, accompanied by Acting-Constable Jackson, again proceeded to remove the shoal, and, on being remonstrated with by Mr. M'Intyre, and warned of the danger of a violent collision between his men and Captain Barton's, whether the acting-constable arrested Mr. M'Intyre, brought him in custody two miles to the Tullaghan Police Station, and kept him there six hours till a magistrate came and ordered his release, declaring there was no charge against him; whether, if the facts be as stated, the Government will explain how soldiers came to be concerned in these proceedings; whether they will inquire into the conduct of Acting-Constable Jackson; and, whether they will invite the Lord Chancellor to consider the propriety of retaining Captain Barton in the commission of the peace?
MR. TOTTENHAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question I should like to ask him whether this is the same gentleman who has received the greatest opposition to the enforcement of his legal rights from the Land League, and whose boats and nets in connection with this fishery have been destroyed, one of the boats being found out at sea with a large hole in it; and, whether he has been obliged to have military and police protection?
MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that there is a dispute between the principal parties mentioned in this Question as to a right of fishing. Captain Barton claims half the river when low. Mr. M'Intyre claims half the river when in flood, and the whole case will form the subject of a lawsuit in the Superior Courts. With regard to the action of Constable Jackson in arresting Mr. M'Intyre, inquiry had already been made. Mr. M'Intyre had pushed one of Captain Barton's men, and used language calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. He was summoned to Petty Sessions, when the case was dismissed; but the presiding magistrate stated his opinion that the constable had acted quite properly in the whole matter. I find nothing in the case which would call for the interference of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the presence of the soldiers, there are two soldiers and one policeman forming a protection post at the place for the protection of Captain Barton's men when employed on his fishery. I must say that the sooner the question of right is settled in Court the better.
MR. TOTTENHAM: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer any portion of my Question?
MR. TREVELYAN: The answer I gave was that there was a protection post on the spot for the protection of Captain Barton's men.
MR. SEXTON: I wish to know whether the magistrate was the same who was reprimanded by the last Administration?
[No reply was given to the Question.]

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will give an engagement to this House that Arabi Pacha shall not be attacked by British troops, or any act of hostility be undertaken in Egypt by British troops without the sanction of Parliament, and until the Egyptian Policy of the Government has been approved by a vote of this House?
MR. GLADSTONE: This Question has, in substance, been put more than once to me, and I have been obliged to answer it by saying that it is not in our power to give the assurances asked for.

1389
I may tell the hon. Member that, while we have both claims and interests of our own, we cannot overlook the fact that the great object of our policy has been to bring the united authority of Europe to bear on the settlement of the Eastern Question.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements made by the Alexandria Correspondent of the "Times," in that paper of the 3rd instant:—
"Egypt is suffering from the delays of diplomacy. If the physicians consult too long they may find there is nothing to save; every day's delay costs the Country £10,000;"
whether it is a fact that some 40,000 persons, mostly European, have left the Country during the last month of panic and that all business is paralysed; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are now able to inform Parliament that the Conference at Constantinople has come to any satisfactory and effective decision with a view to the termination of the disastrous crisis in Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I think too much weight ought not to be given to the statements of correspondents in newspapers. In general terms, no doubt, it may be said that there has been a large, or, perhaps, even a vast compulsory emigration from that country, and the number is estimated at 40,000. There can be no doubt, also, that there has been an extensive paralysis of trade and employment in that country. With respect to the latter part of the Question in regard to the Conference, I can only say that the Conference itself passed a Resolution that their proceedings should be secret, and that any accounts which might go forth with reference to it were not to be regarded as authentic, and that the Conference looks to its members to request their respective Governments to maintain secrecy in like manner. To that Her Majesty's Government have agreed, and consequently we cannot enter upon the subject.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it was the fact, as had been repeatedly stated in the telegrams from Alexandria, that the construction of the earthworks at Alexandria was still going on, and that some of them were armed with heavy artillery directed on the har-
1390
bour, notwithstanding the representations which, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, had been addressed by Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour to the Egyptian military authorities on the subject?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me Notice of this Question, and I trust he will not think me guilty of discourtesy if I say that, in the present circumstances, I must decline to make any statement on the subject.

CRIME (IRELAND)—MURDER OF JOHN KENNY IN DUBLIN.
MR. TOTTENHAM: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information respecting a murder reported to have been committed in Dublin; whether any arrests have been made in consequence of it; and whether he has any reasons to suppose that it is the action of secret societies?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am sorry to say that a murder of a most shocking, and, I may add, ominous and significant, description has taken place in Dublin. The telegram we have says—
"At 20 minutes to 1 last night two men reported that they heard four shots fired in the direction of Sackville Place, (which is somewhere at the back of the Custom House Docks). They went and found a man on his hands and knees on the footway, apparently dead. He was taken to the hospital, and the doctor pronounced him dead. They found two gun-shot wounds in his head, two gun-shot wounds in his body, and seven stabs over the heart. The shots must have been fired close to the body, as the coat was singed in three places. A person, who was living in the street, said he heard a row taking place; he came out of his door, and heard a stick used heavily on some person, who cried, 'Oh, don't!' and, after a few seconds, he heard four shots. Two respectably-dressed men then rushed past him. Another witness said he saw three or five men run away. The body was identified as that of a man named John Kenny. Constables were sent out in all directions, but nobody has been arrested. On the deceased was a belt, with a buckle made of brass, bearing the words, 'God save Ireland,' and the device of a sun bursting through the clouds, and the letters 'A., L., and O'B.,' which are said to mean Allen, Larking, and O'Brien, the persons who were executed at Manchester."

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
MR. CARBUTT: I wish to ask you, Sir, a Question on a point of Order. It

1391
will be in the recollection of the House that I yesterday moved for—
"A Return of the number and size of guns used in the Navy for firing Salutes, the number of rounds fired for each Salute, specifying the occasions on which fired, and the number of accidents which have occurred through firing Salutes during the last five years."
I agreed with the Secretary to the Admiralty that this Return should be ordered as an unopposed Return. It will be in the recollection of the House that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Folkestone) opposed that Return. The noble Lord has persistently opposed Returns, and also persistently opposed Bills; and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether he can be Named for wilful and persistent Obstruction?
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord, on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, acted on his own responsibility and quite within his right.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Speaker, Whether, in the event of the Resolution of Urgency being carried, it would prevent a discussion being raised on the usual Motion for the adjournment of the House upon an answer to any important Question in regard to our foreign relations, which might arise at the time when the Urgency Rule was in force?
MR. SPEAKER: In the event of the Resolution being carried, that the state of Public Business is urgent, it will then become my duty, in pursuance of the Resolution, to frame such Rules and Orders as, in my discretion, appear proper under the circumstances of the case.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the Rules framed last year under a similar Resolution did not contain an Order forbidding any Motion for the adjournment of the House at Question time?
MR. SPEAKER: I do not know that I can give any other answer than I have already given.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved—
    "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House (Urgency)."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what Business will be taken, and in what order it will be taken, after this Motion of Urgency has been carried?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I thought that had been completely understood; but, if it is not so, it is very easily stated. We propose to proceed with the Order for Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill, and prosecuting that Committee to its close, or any other serious Business.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What will be taken to-morrow?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Prevention of Crime Bill, if it is not finished in Committee to-night. If it is finished, then we propose to proceed with the Arrears of Rent Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 391; Noes 20: Majority 371.—(Div. List, No. 238.)

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. GLADSTONE: I declare that the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill, now before the House, is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay; and I beg, Sir, to move, "That the state of Public Business is urgent."
Question put, "That the state of Public Business is urgent."
MR. CALLAN: No.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the "Ayes" have it.
MR. CALLAN: The "Noes" have it.
MR. SPEAKER: I have to call upon the hon. Member to name a second Teller.
MR. CALLAN: Mr. R. Power and Mr. Sheil.
The House divided:—Ayes 401; Noes 19: Majority 382.

AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Armitstead, G.

Agnew, W.

Arnold, A.

Ainsworth, D.

Asher, A.

Alexander, Colonel C.

Ashley, hon. E. M.

Allen, H. G.

Bailey, Sir J. R.

Allen, W. S.

Balfour, J. B.

Allman, R. L.

Balfour, J. S.

Amherst, W. A. T.

Baring, T. C.

Amory, Sir J. H.

Baring, Viscount

Armitage, B.

Barnes, A.

1393

Barran, J.

Craig, W. Y.

Barttelot, Sir W. B.

Creyke, R.

Bass, Sir A.

Crichton, Viscount

Bass, H.

Cross, rt. hon. Sir E. A.

Bateson, Sir T.

Cross, J. K.

Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

Crum, A.

Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

Beaumont, W. B.

Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

Biddulph, M.

Currie, Sir D.

Birkbeck, E.

Dalrymple, C.

Blackburne, Col. J. I.

Davenport, H. T.

Blennerhassett, Sir R.

Davey, H.

Bolton, J. C.

Dawnay, hon. G. C.

Borlase, W. C.

De Ferrieres, Baron

Bourke, rt. hon. R.

De Worms, Baron H.

Brand, H. R.

Dilke, Sir C. W.

Brassey, H. A.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Brassey, Sir T.

Dodds, J.

Brett, R. B.

Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

Briggs, W. E.

Donaldson-Hudson, C.

Bright, rt. hon. J.

Duckham, T.

Bright, J. (Manchester)

Duff, R. W.

Brinton, J.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Broadhurst, H.

Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

Ecroyd, W. F.

Edwards, H.

Brogden, A.

Edwards, P.

Brooks, W. C.

Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

Brown, A. H.

Elliot, G. W.

Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

Emlyn, Viscount

Bruce, Sir H. H.

Estcourt, G. S.

Bruce, hon. R. P.

Evans, T. W.

Bruce, hon. T.

Ewing, A. O.

Bryce, J.

Fairbairn, Sir A.

Buchanan, T. R.

Farquharson, Dr. R.

Burnaby, General E. S.

Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

Burrell, Sir W. W.

Feilden, Major-General R. J.

Burt, T.

Buszard, M. C.

Fellowes, W. H.

Butt, C. P.

Ferguson, R.

Buxton, F. W.

Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

Caine, W. S.

Filmer, Sir E.

Cameron, C.

Finch, G. H.

Campbell, Lord C.

Firth, J. F. B.

Campbell, Sir G.

Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

Campbell, J. A.

Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

Campbell, R. F. F.

Floyer, J.

Campbell-Bannerman, H.

Foljambe, C. G. S.

Forester, C. T. W.

Carbutt, E. H.

Forster, Sir C.

Carden, Sir R. W.

Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

Cartwright, W. C.

Fort, R.

Causton, R. K.

Foster, W. H.

Cavendish, Lord E.

Fowler, R. N.

Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

Fowler, W.

Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

Fremantle, hon. T. F.

Chaplin, H.

Freshfield, C. K.

Cheetham, J. F.

Fry, L.

Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

Fry, T.

Garnier, J. C.

Christie, W. L.

Gibson, rt. hon. E.

Clarke, E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Clarke, J. C.

Gladstone, H. J.

Clifford, C. C.

Gladstone, W. H.

Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

Glyn, hon. S. C.

Coddington, W.

Goldney, Sir G.

Cohen, A.

Gooch, Sir D.

Compton, F.

Gordon, Lord D.

Corry, J. P.

Gordon, Sir A.

Cotes, C. C.

Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

Courtauld, G.

Gower, hon. E. F. L.

Courtney, L. H.

Grafton, F. W.

Cowper, hon. H. F.

Grant, A.

1394

Grant, D.

Lloyd, M.

Grant, Sir G. M.

Loder, R.

Grantham, W.

Lopes, Sir M.

Greer, T.

Lubbock, Sir J.

Gregory, G. B.

M'Arthur, A.

Grey, A. H. G.

M'Arthur, W.

Gurdon, R. T.

M'Clure, Sir T.

Hamilton, Lord C. J.

M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

Hamilton, I. T.

M'Intyre, Æneas J.

Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

Mackie, R. B.

Mackintosh, C. F.

Hamilton, J. G. C.

M'Minnies, J. G.

Harcourt, E. W.

Macnaghten, E.

Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

Magniac, C.

Maitland, W. F.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Makins, Colonel W. T.

Hartington, Marq. of

Mappin, F. T.

Hastings, G. W.

Marjoribanks, E.

Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

Marriott, W. T.

Martin, R. B.

Hayter, Sir A. D.

Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

Henderson, F.

Mason, H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Master, T. W. C.

Herschell, Sir F.

Matheson, Sir A.

Hibbert, J. T.

Milbank, Sir F. A.

Hicks, E.

Miles, Sir P. J. W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Monk, C. J.

Hill, Lord A. W.

Moreton, Lord

Hill, T. R.

Morgan, hon. F.

Hinchingbrook, Visc.

Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

Holden, I.

Morley, A.

Holland, Sir H. T.

Moss, R.

Holland, S.

Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

Hollond, J. R.

Holms, J.

Mulholland, J.

Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

Hopwood, C. H.

Muntz, P. H.

Howard, E. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Howard, G. J.

Nicholson, W.

Howard, J.

Nicholson, W. N.

Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

Noel, E.

Illingworth, A.

Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

Inderwick, F. A.

North, Colonel J. S.

Jackson, W. L.

Northcote, H. S.

James, C.

Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

James, Sir H.

James, W. H.

Norwood, C. M.

Jardine, R.

O'Beirne, Major F.

Jenkins, D. J.

O'Donoghue, The

Jenkins, Sir J. J.

Onslow, D.

Jerningham, H. E. H.

Otway, Sir A.

Johnson, W. M.

Paget, R. H.

Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

Paget, T. T.

Kinnear, J.

Palmer, C. M.

Knightley, Sir R.

Palmer, G.

Knowles, T.

Palmer, J. H.

Laing, S.

Parker, C. S.

Lambton, hon. F. W.

Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

Lawrence, Sir J. C.

Lawrence, Sir T.

Pease, A.

Lawrence, W.

Pease, Sir J. W.

Lawson, Sir W.

Peddie, J. D.

Lea, T.

Peel, A. W.

Leake, R.

Pell, A.

Leatham, E. A.

Pemberton, E. L.

Leatham, W. H.

Pender, J.

Lee, H.

Pennington, F.

Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

Percy, Lord A.

Philips, R. N.

Legh, W. J.

Phipps, C. N. P.

Leighton, Sir B.

Phipps, P.

Leighton, S.

Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

Levett, T. J.

Porter, A. M.

1395

Portman, hn. W. H. B.

Stanley, E. J.

Potter, T. B.

Stanton, W. J.

Powell, W. R. H.

Stevenson, J. C.

Pugh, L. P.

Stewart, J.

Pulley, J.

Summers, W.

Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

Sykes, C.

Ralli, P.

Talbot, J. G.

Ramsay, J.

Tavistock, Marquess of

Ramsden, Sir J.

Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

Rankin, J.

Tennant, C.

Rathbone, W.

Thomson, H.

Reid, R. T.

Tillett, J. H.

Rendel, S.

Tollemache, hon. W. F.

Rendlesham, Lord

Torrens, W. T. M'C.

Repton, G. W.

Tottenham, A. L.

Richard, H.

Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

Richardson, J. N.

Tyler, Sir H. W.

Richardson, T.

Verney, Sir H.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Ritchie, C. T.

Vivian, A. P.

Roberts, J.

Vivian, Sir H. H.

Robertson, H.

Wallace, Sir R.

Rogers, J. E. T.

Walpole, rt. hon. S.

Rolls, J. A.

Walrond, Col. W. H.

Ross, A. H.

Walter, J.

Ross, C. C.

Warburton, P. E.

Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

Warton, C. N.

Roundell, C. S.

Watkin, Sir E. W.

Russell, G. W. E.

Watney, J.

Russell, Lord A.

Webster, J.

Rylands, P.

Whitley, E.

St. Aubyn, Sir J.

Whitworth, B.

St. Aubyn, W. M.

Wiggin, H.

Salt, T.

Williams, S. C. E.

Samuelson, B.

Williamson, S.

Samuelson, H.

Willis, W.

Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

Wills, W. H.

Scott, M. D.

Willyams, E. W. B.

Seely, C. (Lincoln)

Wilmot, Sir H.

Seely, C. (Nottingham)

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

Wilson, I.

Wilson, Sir M.

Severne, J. E.

Winn, R.

Sheridan, H. B.

Wodehouse, E. R.

Shield, H.

Wolff, Sir H. D.

Simon, Serjeant J.

Woolf, S.

Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

Wroughton, P.

Slagg, J.

Yorke, J. R.

Smith, A.

Smith, E.

TELLERS.

Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stafford, Marquess of

Kensington, Lord

Stanley, hon. E. L.

NOES.

Biggar, J. G.

O'Connor, A.

Commins, A.

O'Connor, T. P.

Corbet, W. J.

O'Kelly, J.

Dillon, J.

O'Sullivan, W. H.

Healy, T. M.

Sexton, T.

Lalor, R.

Sheil, E.

Leahy, J.

Thompson, T. C.

Leamy, E.

M'Carthy, J.

TELLERS.

Metge, R. H.

Callan, P.

Molloy, B. C.

Power, R.

Nolan, Colonel J. P.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY).
MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House, as followeth:—The House having re-
1396
solved that the state of Public Business is urgent, I desire to lay upon the Table certain Rules framed by me for the regulation of the Business of the House, while the state of Public Business is urgent.
These Rules are substantially the same as those framed by me in the last Session, and which were, for some time, in operation, with the addition of one Rule relating to Proceedings in Committees of the whole House.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask whether the Rules are to apply to the proceedings of this day; and, if so, whether the best way would not be to have the additional Rule read?
MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes the Rules to be read at length?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I merely put the Question whether the Rules would apply to the Business of this day; and, if so, whether the new Rule should not be read?
MR. SPEAKER: They are in force from this moment, and the Clerk will read the new Rule.
The CLERK (Sir ERSKINE MAY)then read the following Rule:—
"That when it shall appear to the Chairman, during any Debate, to be the general sense of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the Committee; and on a Motion being made That the Question be now put,' the Chairman shall forthwith put such Question; and if the same be decided in the affirmative, by a majority of three to one, the Question previously under Debate shall be forthwith put from the Chair."
RULES Framed by Mr. SPEAKER for the Regulation of the BUSINESS of the HOUSE, while the State of PUBLIC BUSINESS is URGENT.
(Motions for Adjournment.)
1. That no Motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made, except by leave of the House, before the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions have been entered upon.
2. That when a Motion is made for the adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, the Debate thereupon shall be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion.
3. That if, during any Debate, a Motion be made for the adjournment of the

1397
Debate, or of the House, Mr. Speaker may decline to put the Question thereupon, if, in his judgment, such Motion is made for the purpose of obstruction; or, if he think fit to put such Question, he may put it from the Chair forthwith.
4.That no Member, having spoken to a Motion for the adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, shall be entitled to move, or to speak to any similar Motion, during the same Debate.
(Irrelevance or Repetition.)
5.That Mr. Speaker may call the attention of the House to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member; and may direct the Member to discontinue his speech.
(Putting the Question.)
6.That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, during any Debate, to be the general sense of the House, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House; and on a Motion being made "That the Question be now put," Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put such Question; and if the same be decided in the affirmative by a majority of three to one, the Question previously under Debate shall be forthwith put from the Chair.
(House resolving itself into Committee.)
7.That when the Order of the Day for the Committee on any Bill or other matter (declaimed urgent) is read, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith leave the Chair, without putting any Question; and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into such Committee.
(Consideration of Bill, as amended.)
8.That, on reading the Order of the Day for the consideration of a Bill, (declared urgent) as amended, the House do proceed to consider the same without Question put.
(Divisions.)
9.That when, before a Division, Mr. Speaker's decision that the "Ayes" or
1398
"Noes" have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House.
RULES Regulating the PROCEEDINGS of a COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE upon any BILL or other MATTER declared URGENT.
(Motions to Report Progress, &c.)
10. That when a Motion is made, that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate shall be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion.
11. That if a Motion, that the Chair man do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, be made, the Chairman may decline to put the Question thereupon, if, in his judgment, such Motion is made for the purpose of obstruction; or, if he think fit to put such Question, he may put it from the Chair forthwith.
12. That no Member, having spoken to a Motion that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, shall be entitled to move, or to speak to, any similar Motion, during the same sitting of the Committee.
(Irrelevance or Repetition.)
13. That the Chairman may call the attention of the Committee to continued irrelevance, or tedious repetition, on the part of a Member; and may direct the Member to discontinue his speech.
(Putting the Question.)
14. That when it shall appear to the Chairman, during any Debate, to be the general sense of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the Committee; and on a Motion being made "that the Question be now put," the Chairman shall forthwith put such Question; and if the same be decided in the affirmative, by a majority

1399
of three to one, the Question previously under Debate shall be forthwith put from the Chair.
(Members to speak once only.)
15. That no Member shall be allowed to speak more than once to the same Question; unless the Member in charge of the Bill, or any Member who has made a Motion, or moved an Amendment, desires to offer explanations.
(Preamble postponed.)
16.That the Preamble of a Bill do stand postponed until after the consideration of the Clauses, without Question put.
(Divisions.)
17. That when, before a Division, the Chairman's decision that the "Ayes" or "Noes "have it, is challenged, the Chairman may call upon the Members challenging it, to rise in their places, and if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the Committee.
(Questions to be put forthwith.)
18. That, when, by any of the Rules, framed by Mr. Speaker, a Question is to be put from the Chair forthwith, no Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate shall be allowed.
(Proceedings in Committee, and on Consideration of Bill, as amended.)
19. That on a Motion being made, after Notice, by a Minister of the Crown, that in Committee upon any Bill, declared urgent, or upon the Consideration of any such Bill, as amended, the remaining Clauses of the Bill, and any Amendments and New Clauses then standing upon the Notice Paper shall, on and after a certain day and hour, be put forthwith; the Question thereupon shall be forthwith put from the Chair, but shall not be resolved in the affirmative, unless voted by a majority of Three to One.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL IN COMMITTEE— WITHDRAWAL OF IRISH MEMBERS.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House while, in a very few words, I announce a Resolution to which my Colleagues and myself, acting with them, have come as to future proceedings in Committee on this Bill. I cannot do better than read to the House the Resolution, and leave the matter there. The Irish Members who act with me have resolved—
"That, inasmuch as the Irish Parliamentary Party have been expelled from the House of Commons under the threat of physical force during the consideration of a measure affecting the vital rights and liberties of Ireland, and as the Government, during the enforced absence of Irish Members from the House, have passed material portions of that measure through Committee, thus depriving the Representatives of the Irish people of the right to discuss and vote upon coercive proposals for Ireland, we, therefore, hereby resolve to take no further part in the proceedings of the Committee on the Coercion Bill, and we cast upon the Government the sole responsibility for the Bill, which has been urged through the House of Commons by force, violence, and subterfuge" [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] "and which, when passed"—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is importing a matter of debate and controversy into the statement he is now making.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: "And which, when passed into law, will be devoid of moral force, and will not be a Constitutional Act of Parliament."
MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
The CLERK (Sir ERSKINE MAY): Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill—Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd July.]
  [TWENTY-FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. COURTNEY in the Chair.

  NEW CLAUSES.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved, in lieu of Clause 19, to insert the following Clause:—
  Summary procedure for offences under Act.—14 and 15 Vic. c. 93.)
  "(1.) Any offence against this Act shall be punishable on summary conviction, and may be prosecuted—

  (a.) Within the police district of Dublin Metropolis in manner provided by the Acts regulating the powers and duties of justices of the peace of such district or of the police of such district; and

  (b.) Elsewhere in manner provided by 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and the Acts amending the same,

  subject nevertheless to the provisions of this section.
  (2.) The proceedings for enforcing the appearance of the person charged, and the attendance of witnesses, shall be the same, and the evidence for both the prosecution and defense shall be taken as depositions in the same manner as if the offence were an indictable offence; but, save as aforesaid, the procedure shall be the same as in the case of an offence punishable on Summary conviction.
  (3.) A charge for an offence against this Act shall he heard and determined—

  (a.) Within the police district of Dublin Metropolis before a divisional justice of that district; and

  (b.) Elsewhere before two resident magistrates in petty sessions;

  And in this Act the expression 'court of summary jurisdiction acting under this Act' means any such divisional justice or two resident magistrates.
  (4.) The petty sessions held by two resident magistrates may be held at any place fixed by law for the holding of petty sessions, and on such days as may be from time to time determined in prescribed manner.
  (5.) Where a person is convicted summarily of an offence against this Act and sentenced to any term of imprisonment exceeding one month such person may appeal against such conviction to a court of general sessions held in pursuance of this section, but the proceedings before a divisional justice or two resident magistrates, on a charge for an offence against this Act, shall not be reviewed in any other manner, whether by means of a writ of certiorari or otherwise, and such appeal shall, save as hereinafter otherwise provided,—

  (a.) Be subject, except in the police district of Dublin Metropolis, to the provisions to which an appeal under 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' is by section twenty-four of that Act, and any enactments amending that section, made subject; and

  (b.) Be subject in the police district of Dublin Metropolis to the said provisions,
  1402
  with such modifications therein as may be prescribed for the purpose of adapting the same to the circumstances of that district.

  (6.) For the purpose of hearing and determining appeals under this section general sessions of the peace shall be held at the prescribed times and places, and at such general sessions the chairman of the county shall sit as sole judge of the court, and shall hear and determine any such appeals which are brought before him, and shall have the jurisdiction and powers of a court of quarter sessions, and the decision of such chairman, whether as to the jurisdiction of the justice or magistrates or otherwise, shall be final and conclusive.
  (7.) Any depositions taken at the hearing of a case before the divisional justice or two resident magistrates may be admitted in evidence on an appeal in that case.
  (8.) The expression 'chairman of the county' in this section means a county court judge and chairman of the quarter sessions of a county, and includes a recorder."
  New Clause (Summary procedure for offences under Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 93,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause he read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated, that he thought the Ayes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Four Members only having stood up, the Chairman said as the Members voting for the Amendment did not amount to 20, he declared that the Ayes had it.
  MR. BIGGAR (in the absence of the hon. Member for Wexford, Mr. HEALY)begged to move the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend, and which provided that no offence under the Act should be prosecuted after the lapse of a month.
  Amendment proposed to be made to the New Clause,
  In line 8, after "section," to insert the words, "Provided, that no offence against this Act shall be prosecuted later than one month from the date when same is alleged to have been committed."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that it was impossible to accept an Amendment giving impunity to the offender, who could evade justice for a month.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid that there was one matter it was very important they ought to know, and that was the New Rules under which they were now acting. These which had been stated to the House were obviously very valuable Rules, and would advance the progress of Business; but he thought that they ought to know what the whole of the Rules were, and that they should be made acquainted with them when the Chairman was in the Chair. He would, therefore, move to report Progress. He took this course in order that what was taking place now might not be made a precedent for future action. He felt very strongly that it was necessary that they should have before them the New Rules, so that they might know whether they were acting within them or not. He understood that the Speaker had laid the Rules upon the Table of the House, and all he desired was that they should be read from the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am under the apprehension that the New Rule for the guidance of the Chairman, as proposed by the Speaker, has already been read. I do not think that there would have been anything unreasonable in the demand of the right hon. Gentleman if it had been made at the proper time. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It was made.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) certainly did rise, and asked that any Rule that was new should be read, and that was done. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, directions were given by the Speaker to the Clerk at the Table to read the one new Rule which has been added to those framed by him last year during the period of Urgency, and now revived. I do not know whether I am right, but my own impression is that it would be hardly right for the Chairman to read Rules, not only affecting the Committee, but also the whole House. The proceedings which took place at the instance of the right hon. Member for North Devon appeared to be satisfactory to the House; and then the Business of the House was allowed to pro-
  1404
  ceed. I submit that it would be hardly regular to interrupt the Business of the Committee now for the purpose of reading the New Rules now lying on the Table of the House. If a mistake has been made, I think that it would be better to pass it over, and not insist on reporting Progress.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: If this were merely a question of Order I should not raise any objection; but it is a question of the convenience of the Committee, and without in the slightest degree wishing to interpose any kind of delay to the proceedings of the Committee, I would ask if a copy of the Rules could not be supplied to it, or that the New Rules should be read by the Clerk at the Table? I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and, perhaps, in the end it would save time, if the Clerk were instructed to read those Rules which applied to the Business of the Committee.
  MR. METGEsaid, he thought that it would assist the Committee if the Rules were read carefully over. Personally, he had very little knowledge of what the Rules were, and standing as he did in a hostile House, with a majority against him of 100 to 1, it was important that he should understand on what grounds they were entitled to act so far as the New Rules went. He was ready to bow to any point of Order laid down by the Chair, and he only desired to fight in a fair way, without following the example of hon. Members opposite.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had gathered from the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) that it was only the Rules regulating the proceedings of the Committee which were referred to, and in that case it would only be a regular proceeding to have them read.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): It would be regular to read the Rules relating to the Business of the Committee as distinct from the Business of the House; but it would be convenient, in the first instance, that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he was quite ready to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CLERK (Sir ERSKINE MAY) then read the following:—
  RULES Regulating the PROCEEDINGS of a COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE upon any BILL or other MATTER declared URGENT.
  (Motions to Report Progress, &c.)
  10. That when a Motion is made, that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate shall be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion.
  11. That if a Motion, that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, be made, the Chairman may decline to put the Question thereupon, if, in his judgment, such Motion is made for the purpose of obstruction; or, if he think fit to put such Question, he may put it from the Chair forthwith.
  12. That no Member, having spoken to a Motion that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, shall be entitled to move, or to speak to, any similar Motion, during the same sitting of the Committee.
  (Irrelevance or Repetition.)
  13. That the Chairman may call the attention of the Committee to continued Irrelevance, or tedious repetition, on the part of a Member; and may direct the Member to discontinue his speech.
  (Putting the Question.)
  14. That when it shall appear to the Chairman, during any Debate, to be the General sense of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the Committee; and, on a Motion being made "that the Question be now put," the Chairman shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, by a majority of three to one, the Question previously under Debate shall be forthwith put from the Chair.
  (Members to Speak once only.)
  15. That no Member shall be allowed to speak more than once to the same Question, unless the Member in charge of the Bill, or any Member who has made a Motion, or moved an Amendment, desires to offer explanations.
  (Preamble postponed.)
  16. That the Preamble of a Bill do stand postponed until after the conside-
  1406
  ration of the Clauses, without Question put.
  (Divisions.)
  17. That when, before a Division, the Chairman's decision that the "Ayes" or "Noes" have it, is challenged, the Chairman may call upon the Members challenging it, to rise in their places, and if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the Committee.
  (Questions to be put forthwith.)
  18. That, when, by any of the Rules, framed by Mr. Speaker, a Question is to be put from the Chair forthwith, no Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate shall be allowed.
  (Proceedings in Committee and on Consideration of Bill as amended.)
  19. That on a Motion being made, after Notice, by a Minister of the Crown, that in Committee upon any Bill, declared urgent, or upon the Consideration of any such Bill, as amended, the remaining Clauses of the Bill, and any Amendments and New Clauses then standing upon the Notice Paper shall, on and after a certain day and hour, be put forthwith; the Question thereupon shall be forthwith put from the Chair, but shall not be resolved in the affirmative, unless voted by a majority of Three to One.
  Amendment proposed, to be made to the New Clause, in line 8, after "section," to insert the words—
  "Provided, that no offence against this Act shall be prosecuted later than one month from the date when same is alleged to have been committed."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)having stated that he thought the Noes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places; and no Member having stood up, the Chairman said: As no hon. Member has risen in his place, I declare that the Noes have it.
  MR. METGErose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether, when the Chairman had called a division, he was within his right in asking hon. Members to stand up in their places? On a

  1407
  former occasion, when that course was taken the House was cleared.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I have followed the same practice in both cases.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he wished to move the Amendment to this New Clause which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and which was as follows:—As an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert—
  "And the proceedings shall take place in open Court in like manner as provided by the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety-three, in the case of proceedings under the summary jurisdiction of justice."
  At present, while great powers were given to the magistrates, without what the Attorney General for Ireland called the good or Common Law of the land, as construed by the magistrates, it was often the practice for them to adjudicate illegally, and not in open Court. A new class of offenders was created by the Bill; and for the convenience of the public, and for the good working of the Act, it was desirable that the law should be administered in open Court, as a guarantee that it was properly administered. He hoped that the Attorney General for Ireland, even if he would not agree to the exact terms of the Amendment, would adopt some Amendment in the spirit of it.
  Amendment proposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert—
  "And the proceedings shall take place in open Court in like manner as provided by the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter ninety three, in the case of proceedings under the summary jurisdiction of justice."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the New Clause already provided for the publicity of the proceedings, which would be similar to proceedings under the Petty Sessions Acts.
  MR. CALLANintimated that after that assurance by the Attorney General for Ireland he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR moved an Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," as Sub-section (2), insert the following sub-section:—
  "The defendant in any summons to enforce his appearance in the case of any offence against this Act, shall, upon being served with such summons, be entitled to receive from the clerk of petty sessions a copy of the information upon which same is founded on payment of the sum of sixpence."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that the person accused should be afforded a reasonable and bonâ fide opportunity of defending himself, and that on payment of a reasonable sum he should be able to obtain a copy of any charge preferred against him.
  Amendment proposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," as Sub-section (2), insert the following sub-section:—
  "The defendant in any summons to enforce his appearance in the case of any offence against this Act, shall, upon being served with such summons, be entitled to receive from the clerk of petty sessions a copy of the information upon which same is founded on payment of the sum of sixpence."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that he fully appreciated the motives by which the Amendment was moved; but it was rendered unnecessary by having been provided for already by the Petty Sessions Acts which were incorporated in the clause.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the explanation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment, as its object was already secured.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARthen moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), which was as follows:—As an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert—
  "Provided that the summons to enforce the appearance of any person charged with an

  1409
  offence against the Act shall he served at least four clear days before the sessions at which the same is to be heard."
  The object of this Amendment was to enable the person summoned to appear to make the proper arrangements in regard to his attendance. If he only received a very short notice to appear before the Petty Sessions, it might be held that he was staying away intentionally, and a warrant might be issued for his apprehension.
  Amendment proposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, line 13, after "conviction," insert—
  "Provided that the summons to enforce the appearance of any person charged with an offence against the Act shall be served at least four clear days before the sessions at which the same is to he heard."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that this also was an unnecessary Amendment. All the details of the clause were in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Court under the Petty Sessions Act of 1851. That Act provided that a notice should be given before the hearing, and of the reasonableness of the time, the Court itself would be the best judge.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that after the assurance given by the Chief Secretary that the procedure under this Act would be given by the Petty Sessions Acts now in force, he would advise his hon. Friend not to move any Amendment relating to that procedure. The Irish Members would accept the pledge that all the procedure under the Bill would be given by the Petty Sessions Acts.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the new clause which the Government had laid upon the Table of the House set forth, in the most precise words, that the whole proceedings under it would be governed by the Petty Sessions Act of 1851; but there were certain details in the clause which in other respects might be governed in another manner. The observation which he had made as to the proceedings under the clause was a general observation, and was not to be taken as binding the Government to every detail of the Petty Session Acts which might be contrary to the provisions of their own clause. This parti-
  1410
  cular matter was one of the details which came under the Petty Sessions Act of 1851.
  MR. METGEsaid that, of course, the Irish Members quite understood that the Chief Secretary did not intend to place under the operation of the Petty Sessions Acts details which the clause expressly excluded from those Acts. He was sorry that the Government had not accepted this Amendment, or some more definite promise had not been given in regard to it, because the rules of the Petty Sessions Courts on this subject were liable to aid arbitrary variation. He thought that it was necessary that the accused person should have as long a notice as possible. The Act would be most drastic in its form, and for that reason the defendant would naturally demand a longer notice than might be considered reasonable in the case of a man who was merely charged with being drunk and brawling in the streets. Many persons who were brought under the Act would be persons whose occupation would require that they should be moving about the country, such as laborers going from farm to farm, and artizans journeying from town to town. These were the classes of persons who would be charged under the Act, and he thought that there ought to be some extended form of notice given to them. He trusted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to see his way to making the clause a little more definite in regard to the arrangements for notice. He remarked that the Chief Secretary had already stated that the magistrates would be governed on this point by the Act of 1851, the passing of which he well remembered. It would be impracticable, however, to say that there should be no variation from the Act of 1851. In the present state of Ireland, with secret societies acting in a murderous manner, it might be necessary in certain cases to vary the procedure, and the Government would be justified in varying the terms and details of the clauses so far as the procedure was to be governed by the Act of 1851. It was the duty of the Government to adapt the clause so that it might meet the special emergencies of the time.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he wished to move an Amendment before

  1411
  the one that stood next upon the Paper. The Amendment was to insert, after the words "two resident magistrates," the words—
  "One of whom shall he a barrister at law of not less than seven years' standing."
  In moving that Amendment, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), who seemed to be the only Member of the Government left in charge of the Bill, to the fact that a pledge had been given on the part of the Government that when this new clause was inserted, one of the two Resident Magistrates who would have to try cases under these Summary Jurisdiction Clauses would be a barrister. They had had a good deal of discussion on this matter, and he had more than once since the clause had been on the Paper appealed to the Government on the subject. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would admit that he (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly right in stating that upon this point a pledge had been given by the Government. He believed that it was within the recollection of the Committee that there was a distinct pledge to that effect, and it would not be the fulfillment of the pledge to say that the Government would do that wherever it was possible. It was most essential that the decisions of the magistrates should command the respect of the Irish people. Very extensive powers were in trusted to them by the Bill, and it was admitted by the Government that many of the existing Resident Magistrates were not very well learned in the law. It was upon that ground that the Government proposed to associate with those who were expected to administer justice persons who had some knowledge of the law. The Committee ought to insist, as far as they could, upon the pledge of the Government being carried out substantially in the whole, and should not be satisfied with the assurance that, wherever it was possible, one Resident Magistrate would be a lawyer.
  Amendment proposed,
  To insert, after the words "two resident magistrates" the words "one of whom shall be a barrister at law of not less than seven years' standing."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that the Amendment had considerable importance in itself, and also on account of what passed at the earlier stage of the Committee. Allusion had been made to a statement of the Prime Minister which was undoubtedly a very important statement, and one which had been made after careful consultation with those of his Colleagues who were interested in the Bill, and acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland. The statement of the Prime Minister was to the effect that when two Resident Magistrates were sitting, one of them should have had a legal training. He was not able to quote the exact words of the Prime Minister, but he was willing to admit that the statement was to that effect. It was quite obvious however, that a statement of that sort must be taken to mean that it would be carried out to the very utmost extent that was possible. What the Prime Minister wished to express was that he and his Colleagues regarded it as a most important point that one of the Resident Magistrates should have had a legal training. Since then the Prime Minister had. been in communication with Lord Spencer—in very frequent communication with him—as to the method by which this object should be accomplished; but he must remind the Committee that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had subsequently made a statement which was received, he thought, with thorough acquiescence by the whole Committee, and made also at a time when the Committee was very full of the effect that on no account did the Government intend to place in the Bill any arrangements or regulations with regard to the magistrates who were to sit in the Court. But he further stated that this was a mere Executive and Administrative matter, which would be more readily carried out by Executive and Administrative means. The Government were extremely anxious to carry out this point, and they intended to carry it out as far as it possibly could be carried out. That was the only pledge which the Government could possibly give. In order to have one of the Resident Magistrates a lawyer, it was obvious that this meant appointing lawyers Resident Magistrates. It was pretty certain that within a reasonable length of time, indeed soon, a certain number of legal appointments

  1413
  would be made to the list of Resident Magistrates. The Government had determined, as far as possible, to make new appointments among the Legal Profession. He said as far as possible, because the Government could not bind themselves, even at the risk of losing their position as a Government, to anything more. While they would choose the lawyer by preference, they would not take a man, because he was a lawyer, who would not make an efficient Resident Magistrate. Then, again, as regarded the question of seven years' standing; upon that point the Government were still more unwilling to be bound. It was very possible that a man might be a very good lawyer who had not been seven years at the Bar; and it was possible, although he did not speak on authority, that a man might be a very bad lawyer, even after he had been more than seven years at the Bar. It was not necessary to go further for an illustration than to state that some of the very best magistrates in India were young men who had not been members of the Legal Profession as long as seven years. It was very desirable that one of the Resident Magistrates sitting on the Bench should have had legal experience; and he might instance Mr. Felix M'Carthy, who was in every respect qualified to sit as a local magistrate, although he was not a barrister of seven years' standing. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could only repeat the pledge that the Government would do their best to secure this end, for they were as anxious as any hon. Member on the Committee. They could not, however, bind themselves to commit themselves in every instance. That being so he trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. M'COANexpressed great disappointment at what he had heard from the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. M'Coan) had placed upon the Paper an Amendment to the 19th clause as it originally stood, which provided that the tribunal of summary jurisdiction should consist of one of the Resident Magistrates and two ordinary Justices of the Peace. That Amendment was placed upon the Paper before the Prime Minister made his statement directly and in terms pledging the Government to provide that one of the two Resident Magistrates should be a lawyer. He had recognized at once the superiority of such a tribunal to that
  1414
  which was proposed by his Amendment, and he had accordingly taken his Amendment off the Paper. He had no wish to use language stronger than the case required; but he thought that the Committee had great reason to complain that the pledge of the Government had been departed from. They were now told that the pledge of the Prime Minister merely meant the expression of the intentions of those who were administering the Bill, to carry out this principle at their discretion. Although the Chief Secretary did subsequently make the statement he had referred to, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman would go to the length of saying that any statement made by him ought to wipe out a previous pledge given by the Prime Minister. He, therefore, thought that the Irish Members had just cause to complain, not perhaps of the breach of faith, but of something very much like it. The right hon. Gentleman had made out no case whatever for this departure from the original pledge of the Government It could not be pretended that the Irish Bar could not provide an abundance of gentlemen well qualified for the posts which were to be created by the new tribunals. In Dublin he could lay his hand on 20 qualified lawyers, or barristers, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred that word. Not 20, but 50, could be found in the Pour Courts of Dublin who were thoroughly well qualified to act if the Government would accept them. Therefore, there was no pretence for saying that men could not be found; and, further, there was no pretence for stating that men of that kind would not be better than the persons who now constituted the majority of the Resident Magistrates.
  MR. GIBSONpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had some record before him of what had actually occurred. His (Mr. Gibson's) own recollection was somewhat different. The undertaking amounted to this—that steps would be taken to insure that legal assistance should be given to the two magistrates who were to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. That could be satisfied in either of two ways—either by having as part of the tribunal a barrister, or to give legal assistance to the tribunal when especially required to do so on legal points. He did not think that the latter method was at all

  1415
  desirable. It was not desirable to enable the tribunal to shunt the responsibility off their own shoulders on to somebody else. It would be wiser to compel the tribunal, according to its own lights, to exercise this jurisdiction, and to be responsible for the exercise of it. At the same time, he had no wish to press the Government too far on the question, although, he admitted that the Amendment raised a serious and important question as to the constitution of the tribunal. It was not, however, desirable to unduly increase the number of officeholders of the country. There was a substantial number of Resident Magistrates in the country already. Some of them were men of high character and advanced in years—men who would be likely to seek the retirement they had thoroughly earned. If something could be done in the way of recognizing that most delicate topic "allowances," perhaps the difficulty might be got over. All public officers were paid by salary, or by that method which was called "allowances." He thought the Government had done right in announcing that in regard to future requirements, and at an early date, they would bear in mind the necessity of appointing legal men. Perhaps in some cases the lawyer, if solely trained in the profession of a lawyer, would not be the best man to exercise summary jurisdiction. If such a man had been long practicing at the Bar, he was apt to take too technical a view of questions which ought to be decided, to some extent, by the exercise of vigorous common sense, getting rid, as far as possible, of technicalities. Of course, it was desirable that in many instances there should have been a legal training. But the members of his Profession who would be best fitted for the post were those who were not likely to have had to deal with too much technicality. He, therefore, thought that it would be improper to limit the selection to barristers of seven years' standing. It was not desirable that they should establish any hard-and-fast limit. He thought that it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
  Mr. METGEsaid, he was of opinion that one of the arguments employed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was a very strong argument in favor of the Amendment.
  1416
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the tribunal being constituted in such a way that it would be able to shunt its responsibility upon other persons. But that was exactly what would happen if the two Resident Magistrates were military men, and that was a common occurrence in the jurisdiction of Courts of Petty Sessions as now constituted. The result was that the Resident Magistrates were entirely at a loss upon a point of law, and they had to refer to the Petty Sessions Clerk. In almost every case the Petty Sessions Clerk was the legal adviser of the Resident Magistrates.
  MR. GIBSONremarked that the Law Adviser in Dublin Castle was an adviser of the magistrates in matters of law.
  MR. METGEsaid, that he was quite aware of that; but what he meant was that in many cases the actual jurisdiction was vested in the Petty Sessions Clerk. He had often seen these Courts decide upon a simple announcement made to them by the Petty Sessions Clerk on a legal point. He had no wish to depreciate the capacity of these Petty Sessions Clerks, who were very well educated, and a very good class of men; but it would be a terrible thing to see such administrative functions as those which the present Bill created, and applicable to the people of Ireland, transferred into the hands of the Petty Sessions Clerks. That was a statement which he thought would be borne out by numberless facts; but, apart from that, there was another great objection the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have to two members of the Court being composed of military men. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken very forcibly of the advantage to be derived from having the services of lawyers who were under a standing of seven years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they would be free from that encumberment of technicality which might hamper the minds of maturer lawyers. Now, this freedom from technicality was just the danger they had to guard against. One great danger of the Court was that it might proceed in too arbitrary a fashion. The Irish Members had no wish to see this Court turned into a drumhead Court Martial; and if it was to he under the control of two Resident

  1417
  Magistrates, or under the control of one military Resident Magistrate and another magistrate whose legal mind was free from technicality, there would be a danger that the law would be administered with unnecessary harshness. For this reason he should press strongly upon the Committee the propriety of accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It must be remembered that this was a Court of the very first importance. It was to have conferred upon it a power of summary jurisdiction such, as no other Court possessed. It was to have power over the liberty and action of a very large portion of the Irish people; and what was the answer of the Government when they were questioned by the hon. Member for Northampton to lay it down as part of the Bill that it was necessary that there should be a legal adviser in the Court? Their answer was that the Committee must trust to the Government to do their best. His hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) said that he had lost faith in the Government. Now, he (Mr. Metge) had never had any faith in them at all, and should like to see the pledge they had made in the bond. For that reason he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton would divide the Committee. The Government told them that they would do their best, and that they hoped that very soon they would be able to have the Court composed, to a large extent, of lawyers; but surely they had had some months to pass this Bill through the House; they had had plenty of time to get their Court ready. As to not being able to obtain men, that was simply absurd. There was a plethora of lawyers in Ireland who were men of standing, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining the services of any number of legal magistrates. What he feared was that men like Major Bond and Mr. Clifford Lloyd might be called upon to sit in cool, calm judgment on men who might be brought before the Court on trivial cases of "Boycotting." He had known something of the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd during the last winter, and he knew the feeling that existed against him in the West of Ireland. That feeling was that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the Chief Secretary for Ireland last winter, and that the nominal Chief Secretary was under
  1418
  the thumb of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd ruled Ireland with a rod of iron. He did not think it was right that the decision of cases which would arise under the Act should be left to a bench of military martinets, with no legal training, and unfitted by education or social requirements to exercise the functions that would be in trusted to them. For this reason, although he knew and felt that all he had said would be thrown away he should consider it his duty to make a stand against what he believed to be one of the worst features of this damnable Coercion Act.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought that the question involved in the Amendment was one of very serious importance. The Bill they were about to pass was one which would involve the greatest care and technical knowledge, and technical habits of mind, to construe. He did not think that the construction of the Act should be left to men who had had no legal training whatever. There were rules of evidence in existence, many of which were framed in order to protect, to a large extent, persons who were charged before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction—such as the exclusion, of hearsay evidence; but if the decision of the Court was to be left to men who were unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, there would be much less guarantee than Parliament ought to have for securing a fair trial. He hoped that the Government would accede to the Amendment, as he was unwilling to lose one of the most important guarantees for the administration of the Act in a fair and proper spirit.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he believed that this was one of the most important questions that had come before the Committee, and he must certainly say that ever since the Bill was read a second time he had been under the impression that these extraordinary powers were only to be exercised by men who had had a judicial training. He had heard with regret the statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the other day, that there was a possibility of leaving the jurisdiction under the Bill to the ordinary magistrates. At no time was he disposed to indulge in condemnation of officials who desired to do their duty, and much less was he disposed to do so under the present very trying cir-

  1419
  cumstances. But if this Bill was to carry weight with it, and have any practical effect, every strength that could be given to the administration of its summary jurisdiction should be given to it. The Bill was to be used indiscriminately both in peaceful and disturbed districts, and the administration would be inherent in any bench constituted by two magistrates. If that were so, and one of them happened to be a man without legal training, the result would simply be calamitous. He hoped that the clause would not be worked without some such restriction as that which was now proposed. He believed that the adoption of the Amendment would permit it to be worked judiciously, quietly, calmly, and with increased strength. He had no wish to stand in the way of the most severe punishment of every odious act of outrage; for he thought that there was no condemnation strong enough for such offences. He hoped that the powers of the Bill would be reserved for such severe offences, or they would only create irritation, and would result in their gaols being crammed over and over again with persons against whom the provisions of the Bill were not really directed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid they had before them an Amendment which amounted to a stipulation that a person should be appointed as one of the magistrates referred to in the sub-section, who should exercise a separate jurisdiction. To that Amendment Her Majesty's Government were not disposed to accede. He thought, on the whole, that it should be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to give effect to the principle which Her Majesty's Government were disposed to recognize—namely, that one of the Resident Magistrates ought to be possessed of the requisite amount of legal knowledge, apart from the other qualifications for the office. While regarding that principle as reasonable, he did not think it was so satisfactorily recognized in the Amendment as in the way which he should propose. The Government would, on the whole, prefer that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant without being specifically mentioned in the Bill; but, at the same time, if it were the wish of the Committee that it should be so mentioned, they would not object to insert words to the effect that one of the
  1420
  two persons who exercised this jurisdiction should be a person "of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall be satisfied." The mere fact of a barrister having been called to the Bar seven years previously was really no security whatever that he was possessed of the profound legal knowledge and legal habits of mind which it was desirable to secure. In order to meet that desire they were willing that the words suggested should be inserted, although, as he had before mentioned, the Government would, on the whole, prefer not to include them in the Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked leave to withdraw the Amendment after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as it was clearer than that of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which left it uncertain as to whether it would always be the case that one of the magistrates should be a person learned in the law.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had read a statement last week to the effect that three new Resident Magistrates had been appointed to Ireland. He did not know whether it was the case; but he had the impression that two of the three magistrates so appointed might be military men. He therefore took this opportunity of asking whether that was a correct view of the appointments alleged to have been made, and whether it was in accordance with the rule recently laid down—namely, that the persons to be appointed as Resident Magistrates should belong to the Legal Profession? He was strongly of opinion that barristers with legal training gained in the Quarter Sessions Courts would make much better Resident Magistrates than the men hitherto appointed. He was afraid, if the system of appointing military men continued, there would be no chance of any such alteration as the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought it better to dispose of the point at once which had reference to the legal qualifications of the Resident Magistrates, and, therefore, begged to move the insertion of the provision indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Primo Minister.
  Amendment proposed, New Clause 19, Section 3, line 5, after the word "magistrates," to insert the words—
  "One of whom shall be a person of the efficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Lieutenant shall be satisfied."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. METGEsaid he had an Amendment to propose which he thought Her Majesty's Government would hardly refuse to accept. His proposal, were it adopted, would not materially alter the constitution of the Court, although it would, of course, alter it to a certain extent. The magistrates in Ireland had not a large amount of public sentiment in favor of their jurisdiction; yet he was bound to say that the greater the number of members the greater would be the amount of confidence which the Court would secure. He thought the Court should be composed to some extent of men who took the popular view in politics, and should not be restricted to men of one shade of political opinion. There were a number of Roman Catholic magistrates, for instance, in each county, who in politics were Whigs, but who, nevertheless, would be likely to secure for their decisions a certain amount of public confidence, inasmuch as the people would regard them as likely to be bound by what was considered to be fair dealing as between man and man. These gentlemen, he thought, might with advantage be members of the Court, because he regarded any alteration as an improvement which tended to modify the harshness of the judicatory system proposed to be established by the clause. He repeated that his suggestion would not materially alter the constitution of the Court; and, further, the decision of the Court would almost invariably be that delivered by the Resident Magistrates, particularly as the Prime Minister had consented to the principle that one of these should be a man of legal knowledge. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to agree to the Amendment he was about to move, because it would tend to create a feeling amongst the people that some small measure of justice might be looked for at the hands of the Court.
  Amendment proposed, New Clause 19, Sub-section 3, line 5, after the word "sessions," insert the words—
  1422
  "And such other justices as shall be present, having jurisdiction within the district where such sessions are held."—(Mr. Metge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the clause creating summary jurisdiction in cases of intimidation, riots, assaults, and so forth, had been passed by the Committee distinctly on the understanding that the Court should be composed of two Resident Magistrates. If the Government had framed the Bill so as to include all the Justices, and if the great majority of the House had approved the Bill in that shape, then any Amendment excluding those Justices would on a clause of this nature have been vigorously opposed by the Government. There were arguments for and against the Amendment of the hon. Member. There would, for instance, be a certain value in associating the non-professional elements of the Bench in these important decisions, but the principle of the clause having been agreed to, the Government could not alter the lines upon which it was drawn and, at the same time, keep faith with the House. For these reasons the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTpointed out that no more unpopular Amendment could have been proposed than that of the hon. Member for Meath. He believed that the ordinary magistrates in Ireland did not desire to administer this Bill, and he was quite certain that the public opinion in the country did not wish them to have anything to do with it. He was compelled to say that his hon. Friend opposite had acted in a most inconsistent manner in proposing to appoint to this office a class of magistrates against whose appointment he and his Friends had always contended.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he thought it would be an unpopular thing to introduce ordinary Justices of the Peace on the trial of summary jurisdiction cases.
  MR. R. POWERagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) that the local magistrates had a great objection to being made the instruments for carrying out this Act. It was desirable that the local magistrates should not have anything to do with the summary conviction of persons for offences under

  1423
  this Act which occurred in their neighborhood.
  MR. BIGGARsaid he was surprised that Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), who knew the Irish magistrates well, should make so unfavorable a report of them as to say that they were ashamed to have anything to do with the administration of this Act. It seemed rather a strong argument against the Amendment. Nevertheless, he thought that the local magistrates should be associated on the Bench with the Resident Magistrates; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. METGErose in his place.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): What is the object of the hon. Member's rising—the hon. Member having spoken once? The hon. Member has a right to explain, but must not enter into any argument.
  MR. METGE: If the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County were only expressing his own view—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Order! Order! That is not an explanation.
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Wicklow, having reference to a subject which was decided upon by the Committee at the previous Sitting, could not be put.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), he would move the next Amendment standing in his name. It appeared to him that this Act was of so stringent a character that there ought to be a right of appeal in all cases of summary jurisdiction. He was unable to see how the Government could resist that proposal consistently with the desire they had expressed that no innocent persons should suffer injustice in consequence of this Act. If the party were guilty against whom the decision were given, the Court of Appeal would, of course, confirm the decision; on the other hand, if the believed that the decision was wrong, it would be only reasonable that the accused should escape punishment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would see the justice of
  1424
  according the right of appeal in all cases of summary conviction.
  Amendment proposed, in Sub-section 5 of New Clause, line 2, to leave out the words "exceeding one month."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he thought that the discussion which had taken place with regard to the constitution of the Magisterial Bench, showed that there was nothing unreasonable in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan, to the effect that there should be an appeal in every case of imprisonment under this Act. The Committee would observe that not only was the right of appeal denied in cases of imprisonment for one month and under, but that the right to apply for a writ of certiorari was also taken away. He thought there ought, in every case, to be the right of appeal, because it was probable that under the clause as it stood a magistrate might, in the majority of cases, inflict a penalty of one month's imprisonment with hard labor, knowing that his decision would not be reviewed by a Superior Court.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid he trusted the Government would agree to this Amendment. There was a good precedent for doing so in the English Summary Jurisdiction Act, which had now been a year in operation. Under that Act, in all cases of imprisonment without the option of paying a fine the right of appeal accrued. So far from that Act having led to an excessive number of appeals, he believed there had been exceedingly few. It was, he thought, a strong argument in favor of the Amendment, that the power of appeal exercised an excellent influence over the Court which was subject to it. Anyone who had to exercise this jurisdiction in the face of the possibility of appeal was sure to devote himself with greater care to the administration of the law, and to observe the exigencies of the case before him with greater nicety and attention. In his opinion, this would be a very salutary Amendment to insert in the Bill, and, as he had already pointed out, there existed a good precedent in its favor in the Act to which he had referred.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, the Committee would observe that, the order once made under the provisions of this sub-section, it was specially provided that it could not be questioned in any way whatever. His hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had pointed out that the clause not only took away the right of appeal, but the right of applying for a writ of certiorari. That being so it constituted an all-sufficing reason why the right of appeal should be conferred in every case of imprisonment. Now, he believed the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant must admit that it was quite as probable that mistakes might occur and injustice be inflicted in the imposition of sentences for less than one month, as in those exceeding that term—nay, the lightness of the sentence sometimes made some magistrates more careless in the conduct of a trial. The existing law in Ireland, in cases of assault, it was true, when a man was sent to prison for a month, did not give an appeal. But Government had already admitted this was a grievance, and promised to introduce a Summary Jurisdiction Act for Ireland similar to that in force in England. It must be borne in mind that imprisonment was a degrading punishment. Ought they not to try to prevent the imposition of such a stigma on a possibly innocent man? In dealing with a matter of this kind, they ought to proceed on the supposition that there were law-abiding and peaceable citizens in Ireland; and he said it was a monstrous thing if a person of this class had an unjust stigma cast upon him, that he should have no power of getting it removed by appeal to the County Court, or by application for a writ of certiorari. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to the adoption of this Amendment.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid this Amendment deserved great attention on the part of the Committee. They had it in the clause that the right of appeal from the decision of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction was not to exist in the case of a sentence of one month's imprisonment. He was quite unable to see that there was any less hardship in being imprisoned for one month than there would be in being imprisoned for six months; and the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin)
  1426
  had pointed out with perfect truth that a stigma, would attach to anyone who had been subjected to imprisonment, however short the term might be. This was, in his opinion, a forcible argument in favor of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan. He would remind the Committee that when summary jurisdiction was first introduced, the great argument of those who resisted it was that a perfectly innocent person might be subjected to imprisonment, and the stigma attaching thereto, without the power of obtaining redress. For these reasons he said that the Amendment was entitled to the consideration of the Committee. When the Bill first came before the House it contained no provision for appeal in these cases. But the Government had since then very properly yielded on the point, and the right of appeal had, under certain circumstances, been conceded. Moreover, it was only a few minutes ago that the Government had consented to introduce words into the clause which would insure some amount of legal training on the part of one of the magistrates who would exercise this summary jurisdiction, and, therefore, he thought they should not give up the hope of obtaining the assent of the Government to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had stated their views upon this subject had not stated the whole of the case. The clause, so far as the right of appeal was concerned, followed as far as it could do so, and altogether in spirit, the rules of procedure under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851. That Act conferred the right of appeal in all cases where a fine exceeding 20 s. was imposed. But in this Bill no fines were created, and, therefore, the appeal given in the clause was consonant with the existing Irish law. Now if, under the existing Irish law, a man might be sent to prison for an assault for one month without appeal, where was the grievance that, under this clause of a Bill imposed under exceptional circumstances, and for alimited time, the same power should be given? He could see none. But the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had quoted the 19th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (England), 1881, which laid down the general principle that wherever a sentence of

  1427
  imprisonment without the option of a fine was imposed, the accused might appeal. But it must be remembered that in England, if the accused were guilty, he would be convicted if tried by a jury, and in that case would have no right of appeal; whereas the one main cause of the stringent form of summary jurisdiction proposed in this Bill was that trial by jury had confessedly failed. That was the opinion of the House as a whole, and, therefore, the clause, which was a substitute for the English Summary Jurisdiction Act, constituted a great concession, inasmuch as an appeal was allowed in respect of five-sixths of the punishment awarded. The Government were giving the power of appeal to an extent greater than was allowed in the English Act, which was reserved only in respect of the one month's imprisonment instead of the other five. Again, it must be remembered that the right of appeal proposed in the Amendment before the Committee would bring about very serious practical inconvenience. The great object to be kept in view with regard to punishment in general, and especially with regard to crime in Ireland, which the Bill was intended to prevent, was that it should be both certain and speedy. He was told by one of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland that a light, but speedy and certain, punishment was very much more feared than a heavier punishment, which it was known would not be inflicted until after a certain lapse of time. Now, at the present time, Quarter Sessions Courts were held four or five times a-year, and the probable effect of the clause as it stood would be to require them to sit very much oftener. But the Committee would not believe that the habits and obligations of gentlemen who composed the Quarter Sessions Courts could be so altered that they should be always sitting to hear appeals, which would, if the Amendment were adopted, be always coming up to them from the Lower Summary Jurisdiction Courts. It was reasonable to believe that the delay caused would be very great, and that it would have a serious effect in diminishing that just respect for the punishments of the law which was, above all things, desired.
  MR. METGEsaid, the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that
  1428
  the object of the Bill was to strike quickly and certainly—that was to say, if they could get hold of the criminal. But the contention of Irish Members on that side was that the Government could not do this; and, moreover, that their inability in this respect was likely to continue. Again, the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his observations upon the Amendment, had told the Committee that it would lead to inconvenience. Now, surely, there never came from the Treasury Bench such an argument in favor of refusing the right of appeal to persons convicted under an Act of Parliament. But he also said that the right of appeal was to be refused, because it was refused under the law as at present existing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could not believe that the Committee would for one moment take in an argument which, to the most obtuse mind, must appear fallacious. Because the existing law in Ireland refused appeal in cases of imprisonment of not more than one month, therefore that law was to be applied in this Act. But the English Act referred to was intended to meet such cases as a man not having his name on a cart, being a little drunk, committing some trifling assault, or using strong language. But persons guilty of offences under the Bill would be liable to be punished by this Court of Summary jurisdiction; probably many trivial cases would be brought before them, and he had no doubt that they would in such cases always award the highest meed of punishment possible, up to one month, in order to avoid appeals. The most trifling offences against the ordinary laws of society might be construed by the magistrates into offences against this Act. He would not enter upon the conflicting definitions of the crime of intimidation given in the Bill, because that subject in itself would afford legitimate room for occupying the time of the Committee until the Sitting was adjourned. But under that head alone many offences would be brought before the magistrates of the most trivial character. The Committee was familiar with such cases as little boys looking in an intimidating manner at policeman, and as if they were going to be impudent to them. The right hon. Gentleman smiled at this, but it was no laughing matter to the little boys who were punished. The cases he

  1429
  referred to would, of course, be described as extreme; but he was contending that the scope of the section was very wide, and that unless the Amendment were adopted, the magistrates in similar cases would have the strongest inducement to inflict a month's, or less than a month's imprisonment, in order that their decisions might not be reviewed by a higher Court. He feared that in the administration of this clause the magistrates would lay aside the principle, which was said to be the proud boast of the English Criminal Law, that an accused person should have the benefit of the doubt, and be inclined to say—"This man, having offended once, is likely to offend again; we will not give him the benefit of the doubt; we will give him a month's imprisonment." He contended that the appeal asked for could do no harm. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said it would lead to delay; but, in reply to that, he would point out that to a large extent the right of appeal would not be acted upon, except in cases where the decision of the magistrates was flagrantly unjust. No solicitor would take up the case of a poor boy without there were friends at his back who could pay, and certainly not merely for the purpose of trying to evade justice. The Amendment would do no more than allow decisions to be reviewed where there was a good case, and which, if they were not reviewed, would be regarded with the greatest disgust by the whole community in Ireland. He thought the point was one which the Government might reasonably concede. When he considered what was to be the constitution of the Court, and the arbitrary character of the functions which were to be exercised by the magistrates who composed it—when he considered that it was a Court which would not for one moment be permitted to exist in this country, whatever might be the arguments for or against its existence in Ireland, he thought that no fair-minded man could wish that the cases which came before it should not have the right of appeal extended to them all. The Attorney General for Ireland had, on a former occasion stated, in reply to a question which he (Mr. Metge) had put to him that the Irish Resident Magistrates were practically under no control whatever. The right hon. Gentleman was forced to acknowledge that these
  1430
  officials, who were practically despotic, and who even, under the existing law, could do what they liked, were subject, so far as their decisions were concerned, neither to the control of the Lord Lieutenant nor of the Crown—that no Court could review the sentences which they chose to pass upon unfortunate criminals. But, under the present Bill, that danger would be increased threefold, because not only would the arbitrary power of the magistrates, under the old law, continue to exist, but it would be extended over the unlimited area opened up by bringing under the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrates many offences which were utterly beyond the scope of the English law and the necessities of the case.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he was surprised that the Government could not see their way to consider the Amendment favorably having regard to the circumstance that it had been advocated by Members of all shades of opinion. It had been supported by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater), by three English Members, and by the hon. Member for Meath who had just spoken. The Amendment meant nothing more than that persons brought up before the Resident Magistrates upon trivial charges should have the right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his arguments against it, said that under the Bill no fines were imposed; but he (Mr. R. Power) regarded that as one of its greatest defects. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that under the existing law in Ireland a man could be imprisoned for a month without appeal; but here, again, he could not agree with his argument, because he could not admit that because the old law allowed no appeal in the cases in question, that law should be embodied in. this Bill. His own view was that accused persons, under all circumstances, should have the right of appeal, especially in the cases contemplated here. The magistrates who were to administer the Act were a class of men in whom, rightly or wrongly, the people of Ireland had no confidence; and it should be remembered that, without doubt, a great many innocent persons must be arrested and brought before them. The powers of the Act, too, were of a most sweeping character, and it should also be borne in mind that they were to be

  1431
  put in force by men who were unknown in the country. These magistrates might be the most honorable and worthy gentlemen in the world, or they might not; but, at any rate, there was no reason to believe they were better than some of the men who had previously carried out the law in Ireland. Again, there could be no doubt that at the present time the police in Ireland were strongly imaginative. It was only a few weeks ago that a Miss Reynolds, of the Ladies' Land League, was arrested on a charge of intimidating a policeman, who, in reply to the magistrate, said that the intimidation consisted in frowning at him. That was the sort of thing policemen, at the present time in Ireland, called intimidation; but anyone who was personally acquainted with Miss Reynolds would know that no one could be so intimidated by her. Then there was the case of the malicious boy who put "no" before the word "rent" on a placard displayed by way of advertisement on the backs of some pigs. The pigs were arrested and imprisoned; but he was glad to say that the owner could not be found, for had the police got hold of him he would have been imprisoned too. The constitution of the Court was one of the things they were bound to keep before them in considering this question, because in many cases, he did not say in all, very little confidence was placed in them by the people. That being so, he said that the Amendment would produce a salutary effect both in the minds of the people and upon the magistrates themselves, who would, when they knew that the right of appeal could be exercised by the accused in all cases, be far more careful in their decisions. For these reasons, he earnestly appealed to Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the clause, as had been already pointed out, took away the right of application for a writ of certiorari—that was to say, the right which every person charged had of having the proceedings in his case reviewed by a Superior Court composed of the Judges of the land.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (MR. COURTNEY)said, the question as to taking away the right to apply for a writ of certiorari had not arisen. The Question before the Committee was whether the
  1432
  words "exceeding one month" should stand part of the clause.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he was aware of that fact; but he was arguing that the right of appeal should be given in exchange for the right of application for a writ of certiorari which was to be taken away. The Committee would be aware that the right of appeal was conferred by Act of Parliament; but that the right to a writ of certiorari was the prerogative of the subject, and could only be taken away by Act of Parliament. Therefore, he appealed to the Committee not to be guided by any appearance of kindness on the part of the Crown, but to look to the fact that they were depriving the Irish people of great prerogatives which had existed for centuries. He held that the right of appeal should be extended to sentences of one month's imprisonment, or that the right to a writ of certiorari should not be taken away.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 187: Noes 33: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
  MR. FINDLATER MR. FINDLATER moved as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's New Clause 19, Sub-section 5, line 3, leave out from "appeal" to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "Either against the conviction and sentence or against the sentence within two days after the same shall have been pronounced to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice; such appeal shall he by notice in writing served on the gaoler in whose custody the accused may he, or on one of the resident magistrates who made the conviction; such notice shall not be deemed insufficient by reason of any defect or omission whatsoever. The said notice of appeal if served upon the gaoler shall forthwith be sent by him to one of the resident magistrates who shall have made the conviction, who shall within twelve hours after receipt thereof transmit the same, together with the evidence taken on the hearing of the case, and the original order of conviction, to the Master of the Crown Office. Within one week from the receipt of the notice of appeal by the Master of the Crown Office, such appeal shall beset down and heard by any two judges of the High Court of Justice. The judges shall sit fur hearing such appeals according to a rota to be determined by the Lord Chancellor. Every such appeal shall be a re-hearing of the evidence taken in writing in manner by this Act provided, and the judges hearing the same may confirm, modify, or reverse any conviction or sentence so appealed against, and in case the judges hearing any such appeal shall disagree as to the determination thereof, then the con-

  1433
  viction or sentence so appealed against shall be reversed. The resident magistrates, or one of them, who shall have made any conviction which shall have been appealed from, may, if they or he think fit, discharge the person so appealing on sufficient bail pending the hearing of any such appeal."
  The hon. Member explained that his object in proposing this Amendment was to secure a simple and expeditious method of appeal, and also to provide that the Judges who should sit for the hearing of appeals should be selected in accordance with the rota to be determined by the Lord Chancellor. It also provided that within a week from the receipt of the notice of appeal the appeal should be set down and heard by two Judges of the High Court of Justice, and that every appeal should be a re-hearing of the evidence taken in writing as provided by the Act. His Amendment further provided that the Resident Magistrates who had made a conviction that was the subject of appeal should have power to discharge the person appealing on sufficient bail being tendered pending the hearing of the appeal. As the clause now stood it would be necessary for a person appealing, if he could not get the appeal heard at the Petty Sessions, to wait until another Sessions, which would be very objectionable.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'against such conviction to a Court of General Sessions held in pursuance of this section' stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)opposed the Amendment on the ground that, instead of giving a cheap and expeditious means of appeal, it would invent new machinery, requiring an appeal to be sent to the Court of Queen's Bench, and it would occasion very considerable delay and a large additional expense. He did not know it was intended that witnesses should be examined; but, probably, that was not the case, because provision was made that evidence might be given in writing. But what was proposed by the hon. Member was that a person, instead of having an appeal to a Court at his own door, where he could call whatever witnesses he chose, should be put to the expense of going to Dublin in order to prosecute an appeal before a Superior Court. It was perfectly plain that such a provision would only defeat the object his hon. Friend (Mr. Findlater) had in view,
  1434
  and in many cases would deprive an accused person of the benefit of the appeal given by the Bill.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) that this was only an alternative appeal—that, in the first instance, there would be an appeal to the Court of Petty Sessions; but that if it were found desirable to go to another Court, such power should be in the hands of the accused person. Personally, he (Mr. Biggar) was of opinion that it was most desirable to have the two modes of appeal. The Court of Petty Sessions only met once every three months; and a large amount of punishment might be inflicted before an appeal could be heard. Although it might be more expensive to carry the appeal to Dublin in certain cases, it would be more in conformity with the principles of justice that there should be such power of appeal.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he was of opinion that in regard to the question of expense the difficulty might be got over in this way. It was a very common thing in the Courts of Law in England to send up cases for the decision of the Courts above. In this case the whole matter might be sent up to the Courts in Dublin with very little expense at all; and so far as the unfortunate criminal was concerned, it might be most desirable that he should have the power of appealing to a tribunal which should be altogether removed from the suspicion of partiality; and in the end it might be much cheaper than the expense and trouble involved in appealing to the Court of Quarter Sessions. Personally, he did not think too much weight ought to be attached to the argument of expense.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the ordinary course pursued in England in regard to appeals did not altogether apply to Ireland; and he wished, further, to point out that an appeal to a Superior Court would exclude the accused from the advantage which he possessed on the spot of being able to adduce additional oral evidence.
  MR. WARTONpointed out that the Amendment practically left out the whole of the sub-section of the clause, and constituted a different mode of procedure.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid that the next Amendments which stood in his name upon the Paper were merely consequential, and he should not move them.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved, in page 10, after Clause 21, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Regulation as to warrants and notice of trial.)

  "(1.) A warrant for the trial by a special commission court of a person charged with an offence shall be in the prescribed form, and shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be issued before he is arraigned for trial for such offence before some other tribunal in the ordinary course of law, or before the expiration of two months from the date of his being committed for trial, whichever of such events may first happen.

  (2.) A copy of a warrant for the trial of a person before a special commission court shall be served on such person in the prescribed manner not less than fourteen days before his trial before such court begins, and shall be published in the Dublin Gazette, and shall be laid before Parliament, within fourteen days, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not within fourteen days after the then next meeting of Parliament.

  (3.) Not less than fourteen days before the sitting of any special commission court to try a person for any offence, public notice shall be given in the prescribed manner in the locality in which the person charged with such offence was committed for trial, stating the names of the special commissioners, the said offence, the name of the person charged with such offence, and the place at which the court will sit and the day on which the sitting of the court will begin. A copy of such notice shall also be served in the prescribed manner, and within the prescribed time, on the person to be tried.

  (4.) An objection to the jurisdiction of a special commission court to try a person for any offence shall not be entertained by reason only of any non-observance of the provisions of this section; but the court, on application, may adjourn the case, so as to prevent any person charged being prejudiced by such non-observance."

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved to insert the following Clause:—
  (Rota of judges.)

  "(1.) The judges to be members of a special commission court, and the judges to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal under this Act, shall be respectively selected according to separate rotas to be determined by ballots held at the
  1436
  prescribed time and in the prescribed manner; but where a judge appears to the Lord Lieutenant to be, on account of illness or some reasonable cause, ineligible, the judge next on the rota shall be selected.

  (2.) Any judge appointed after either rota is determined shall be added after all the other judges on the rota.

  (3.) An objection to the jurisdiction of a special commission court, or of the Court of Criminal Appeal under this Act, shall not be entertained by reason only of the rota of the judges to form or sit on such court not having been properly determined, or not having been observed."

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill?"
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the character of this clause. They were establishing a new Court—a Court almost unknown to this country—which was to consist of Judges who were to try both the facts and the law. If it were a Court of Judges only to try questions of law, he would have no objection to their being selected by rota or by ballot, because it was only a fair inference that all the Judges would be equally acquainted with the law of the land. But this was a question of law and fact combined together, and consequently a very different state of circumstances arose; and they had to consider whether all the Judges were able to form a correct decision, in all cases. It must be borne in mind that the Judges assigned to this work were to perform the duty of juries, and he did not doubt for a moment that the Judges of the United Kingdom were pre-eminently qualified to pass opinions upon questions of law, and that a good many of them would be able to act as jurors as well as Judges; but it was very well known that there were a limited number of Judges well acquainted with the law to whom, questions relating to particular facts could not be advantageously referred. They were gentlemen who had passed their lives in the consideration of subjects entirely alien from those questions of that nature, and many of them would be altogether unable to address a jury upon such subjects. By adopting the system of rota or ballot, there would be no means of eliminating from the tribunal men who would themselves be the first to say that they were utterly unquali-

  1437
  fied for this purpose. Instead of a rota, he would suggest that the Judges should be selected by the Lord Chancellor, whom he believed to be the highest judicial officer in Ireland. He was of opinion that if they left the Lord Chancellor to fix the rota of Judges who were to decide these cases, he would select men who were infinitely better qualified to consider the questions that would arise than if the selection were left to a chance ballot. At any rate, the question was one which was worthy of consideration.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought that the hon. Member for Durham City (Mr. Thompson) had treated this new clause somewhat ungratefully, seeing that it had been brought in by the Home Secretary in order to meet the suggestions and wishes of the Irish Members themselves. The original suggestion of the Government was that the rota should be selected by the Lord Chancellor; but so much objection was taken to that proposition that his right hon. and learned Friend had agreed to bring up a new clause providing that the Judges should be selected by ballot.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he hoped the objection to the clause would not be pressed. The Government, in adopting the principle which was given effect to in the clause, had simply carried out the suggestions of the Irish Members. He was ready to believe that the present Lord Chancellor was a man in whom they all had the greatest confidence, and for whom they entertained the highest respect, and he was satisfied that the Lord Chancellor would do nothing unfair; but, at the same time, it was at the suggestion of the Irish Members that this amended clause had been introduced, and he did not think it would be fair to the Government to reject it.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Government, in introducing this clause, had done their best to meet the objections which had been raised by the Irish Members, and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Durham City (Mr. Thompson), in this particular instance, would withdraw his opposition. The hon. Member had acted throughout the discussion of this Bill in a kindly spirit towards Ireland; but the present clause certainly met with the support of the Irish Members.
  MR. M'COANsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had placed an Amendment on the Paper expressly providing that the Judges should be selected by ballot. He regarded the clause now proposed as a concession on the part of the Government to that extent, and a concession for which the Irish Members ought to be grateful.
  MR. METGEsaid, he quite agreed with what had been stated by his hon. Friends, that this was a clause which ought not to be rejected. With regard to being grateful to the Government for their clause, that was absurd. They had nothing whatever to be thankful for to the Government in respect to any portion of the Bill, as the whole of this legislation was simply a travesty of justice. So far as the Court itself was concerned, instead of having an impartial Judge standing between the accused and the Crown, they had a body of Judges who assumed to themselves the office and functions of Crown Prosecutor and jury as well. No matter how the Judges were selected, that fact alone, upon the face of it, ought to insure the condemnation of the Bill; and it must also be borne in mind that the proposals of the Government in regard to the tribunal it sought to establish were condemned by every one of the Judges upon the Irish Bench. He thought that fact could not be brought too often before the Committee. The working of the Bill would be placed in the hands of men selected by ballot from a body that was altogether opposed to the principles upon which the Bill was founded.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that this clause had been introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, to meet any possible objection that the choice was made for a political purpose, in fulfilment of a promise to the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause. He had not understood the Chairman to put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the hon. Member was too late. The clause was already disposed of.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the clause he was about to move represented an effort on the part of the Government to retain trial by jury. He supposed there was no Member of the House who was not satisfied that the system of trial by jury as it then existed in Ireland, was absolutely unworkable. Over and over again the Judges had complained that verdicts were given against the evidence and in spite of the charges given to the juries. It was, therefore, plain that trial by jury in its present form in Ireland could not be retained, and, acting upon that view, the House had passed a clause empowering the Lord Lieutenant to substitute for trial by jury, trial before a Special Commission Court in certain cases. He repeated that this was an effort on the part of the Government to retain trial by jury. At present, although the humblest individual of the community might, if he thought fit, in a matter affecting his property, have the case tried by a special jury—by persons of larger intelligence and of better education and position in the country, who might be supposed to be superior, in consequence, to influences which operated sometimes in the case of common juries—yet if he were arraigned on a charge by which his life was imperilled, he would be tried by a common jury. This clause, then, proposed that the Crown, in the cases specified therein, might require that the jury should consist entirely of special jurors. The special jurors who would form the panel, as the common jurors did now, would be selected by ballot as at the present time. So that the Crown on the one hand, or the accused on the other, might have the case tried under precisely the same circumstances as those under which an accused person was then tried, except that he would be tried by a jury of a higher class of intelligence. For the purpose of obtaining greater impartiality, the clause provided that special jurors should be contributed by a county of a city or town, as well as by a county, as mentioned in the first column of the 2nd Schedule to the Bill. They would be taken by ballot from the two panels, and the Sheriff of each of the contributory counties would deliver to the officers of the Court the ballot cards of the two counties, which would
  1440
  be mixed in the ballot box. The Solicitor to the Crown and the solicitor for the prisoner would then compare with the panels the name, address, and number of each person whose name came out upon the card, so that they would be able to see at once whether any objection arose to the name of any juror which enabled them to challenge. The clause did not in any way interfere with the right of the prisoner's challenge. He begged to move the insertion into the Bill of the following clause:—
  Special Jurors.
  (Special jurors in criminal cases.)
  "(1.) Where the trial of a person charged with an indictable offence would otherwise have been held by a jury before some court not being a court of general or quarter sessions, the Attorney General for Ireland, or the person charged, may, on serving the prescribed notice in the prescribed manner, require that the jury shall consist entirely of special jurors, and the jury shall consist of special jurors accordingly. Where more persons than one are to be tried altogether on the same charge, and notice for special jurors has not been served by the Attorney General, but has been served by some and not all of such persons, the jury shall consist entirely of special jurors or not, as the Court may direct.
  Provided that a trial shall not be impeached on any ground connected with the qualification of the jurors or any of them.
  (2.) The special jurors shall be taken by ballot in manner provided by the nineteenth section of 'The Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876,' from all the jurors upon the panel returned by the sheriff from the special jurors' book.
  (3.) A county mentioned in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act, and a county of a city or town set opposite the name of that county in the second column of the said Schedule, shall as respects special jurors be deemed to be contributory counties; and the special jurors of each of two contributory counties shall be lawful jurors for the trial of any person who is to be tried by special jurors in either of such contributory counties: and, whenever a trial requiring special jurors under this Act is about to take place in any one of two contributory counties, steps shall be duly taken by the sheriff of each of the said counties for returning to the proper officer of the court in which such trial is held the panel of the special jurors of his county, and the special jury for such trial shall be taken by ballot accordingly from all the jurors upon such two panels indifferently; and the sheriff of each of the said contributory counties shall deliver to the proper officer of the court the cards for such ballot, and the ballot shall be taken, in manner provided by the said nineneenth section of 'The Juries Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1876.'
  The expression 'sheriff' in this section includes any officer who by law performs the

  1441
  duties of sheriff in relation to the return of jurors."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was of opinion, when he first saw this clause upon the Paper, that the placing of it there was an act of audacity on the part of the Government; but he was bound to say that this audacity had been exceeded by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who said that the introduction of this clause was an effort on the part of the Government to maintain trial by jury in Ireland. The proposal of the Government came a little late in the day, and it led to the question, why, having all along made up their minds to administer justice in Ireland by jury, did they come down to the House and ask them to abolish trial by jury and appoint a Special Commission Court to take the place of juries? This was not so much a question of law as of policy, and he ventured to say that when Ministers applied to Parliament for extraordinary powers, particularly as Parliament was at present constituted, they ought carefully to consider what they wanted, and not ask more than was absolutely necessary for the Government of the country. The Government had said to Parliament in effect, "We cannot govern Ireland without the absolute suspension of trial by jury;" and on the faith of that statement the House had agreed to the 1st clause of the Bill, which suspended trial by jury in Ireland. But now, after the Bill had been in Committee for a month, and hours and hours had been spent in discussing the question of the Special Commission Court, the Government came forward at the last moment and said they were going to make a grand effort to retain trial by jury in Ireland. Why, the proposal on the Paper, taken in connection with the next clause which was connected with it, was a Prevention of Crime Bill in itself, and he ventured to say it was the Bill which ought to have been brought in at first, and, moreover, that the House ought not to have been troubled with the conflicts which had
  1442
  taken place over the question of the suspension of trial by jury. He asked what had taken place in Ireland since the original proposals of the Government were laid on the Table to make this change of policy necessary? He ventured to say that this clause was the one on which the Government must act, instead of the clause which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a Special Commission Court to administer justice in Ireland without a jury, because under it they would obtain the same successful administration of justice as was obtained at the Cork Winter Assizes of 1881. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that everybody who was tried at those Assizes, against whom proper evidence was brought, was convicted. There was not a single miscarriage of justice at those Assizes, and the learned Judge, now Judge of the Court of Appeal, declared in respect of them that no juries could have done their duty better. The procedure at the Assizes in question was analogous to that prescribed in this clause and the next, with respect to which he was bound to say that the arrangements for changes of venue were somewhat startling. What he wanted to know was whether the clause represented the original policy of Her Majesty's Government; whether it was a damnosa hœreditas left to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), or whether it was the effect of a better state of mind in the right hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan)? However that might be, let there exist a clear undertaking on the part of the Government as to whether they meant to administer justice in Ireland with a jury or without a jury. For his part, he thought it was obvious that the administration of justice in Ireland must take place under this clause, because anyone who had a knowledge of affairs in that country would very much sooner wish to see trials take place before juries than before the Special Commission Courts, which the Lord Lieutenant might appoint.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, the noble Lord was not arguing against the clause moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, but against a clause which was already part of the Bill.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, there appeared to be a little misunderstanding on the subject; but he was asking Her Majesty's Government on which clause they proposed to proceed? The House had granted them extraordinary powers, and, as they now came forward with a fresh proposal, it was only right to ask them which clause they meant to make use of for the punishment and prevention of crime in Ireland? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: All the powers.] Then he ventured to say it was extremely unlikely they would succeed. He had made one or two predictions, on former occasions, as to what would happen with reference to the Government of Ireland, and in each case he had had the melancholy satisfaction of witnessing their fulfilment. He charged the Government with having deliberately wasted 14 days in suspending trial by jury, while it was their intention all the time to bring up a clause which would render that suspension altogether unnecessary. That was his prediction, and he said that if this clause was going to be used, it was not hon. Members behind him who ought to have been suspended, but that constellation of geniuses who sat upon the Treasury Bench.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the assistance which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) always rendered towards the passing of measures for the restoration of peace and tranquillity in Ireland was notorious. Last year the noble Lord had done what in him lay to render it difficult to pass the measures of this kind which were then before the House, although this year, owing to circumstances that all must regret, his opposition had been less active. But those regrettable circumstances might also account for his complete ignorance as to the progress of the Bill. The noble Lord seemed to imagine that the clause represented an entirely new idea on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but the fact was that he (Sir William Harcourt) had clearly indicated it when he first asked leave to introduce the Bill. At that time he stated as distinctly as possible that the proposal would be made, and it was only reserved as a matter of convenience in drafting, the question being whether it should be imported into the present measure or made the subject of a separate Bill. Hon. Mem-
  1444
  bers would know that, throughout the discussion on the clauses having relation to the appointment of a Special Commission Court, it was constantly kept before the mind of the Committee that this proposal was part of the general scheme of the Government. The noble Lord thought the proposal was good, and that the clause empowering the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a Special Commission Court was a bad one, and he asked which clause the Government were going to use? The answer was that they were going to use both of them; it was because they intended to use both of them that the two clauses were proposed. The noble Lord had spoken of the time occupied in the discussion of the 1st clause, and in doing so had simply multiplied the number of days by seven that were actually expended on it. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What, taking the second reading and the Committee together?] That point, however, was not material, and he would detain the Committee no longer than to express a hope that, although the Government had not had the voice of the noble Lord, upon this occasion, he would rote for the clause if the second reading were challenged.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed to him to have pursued a most extraordinary course. In the speech just made he had fully justified Obstruction against the Bill, because he described it as a species of omnium gatherum measure, in which every Gentleman who had some sort of nostrum for the government of Ireland dragged in his clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he himself had some hesitation as to whether he should bring in the present proposal as a separate Bill. How could he suppose that a fresh Bill—the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own words—should be put in here, and that, almost without discussion, the Committee should vote for a proposal which would absolutely change the whole system of procedure with regard to juries in Ireland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that all this was in his mind, and that he had stated to the House, on the first reading of the Bill, that he intended to bring in a clause of this kind. But there must have been some reason why the clause did not ap-

  1445
  pear in the Bill as submitted to the House; and he ventured to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the reason was not this—that he had forgotten to consult the Irish Judges on the subject, and that they had practically refused to accept the powers which he sought to throw upon them? Had not the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to himself that if he could not get the Judges to try the cases, he would tamper with the Irish jury system in order to pass the Bill? Everyone accused of crime was tried in Ireland now by a common jury; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that common juries would not convict, and, therefore, he proposed to have special juries to try offences under this Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said that special juries were exempt from the list of common jurymen.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I said they were taken from the long panel.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, in any case, it came to this. It was admitted that in Ireland there were two hostile camps, one consisting of landlords and those connected with them, and the other consisting of the great mass of the population. He did not say this was admitted by everyone in the House; but that view was taken by a great many hon. Members. But what did this clause do? It must be admitted that the Bill itself was not alone aimed at outrage; it was aimed at political agitation; and, consequently, those who were accused of political agitation, and who belonged to what he might call the people's camp in Ireland, would be tried at the pleasure of the Attorney General for Ireland by juries who, in the main, would be chosen from the landlord class or those connected with that class. He believed it was in Magna Charta that everyone should be tried by his own peers, and he asked whether a man would be tried in Ireland by his own peers under this Bill? The noble Lord said it was more probable that a man tried for an offence with which politics were connected would obtain more justice from a tribunal of three Judges than from a special jury.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said the Crown were more likely to obtain a conviction from a jury con-
  1446
  stituted in this fashion than from three Judges.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not see the distinction. That was precisely the point, and he had put it to many Irish Gentlemen who were not then present. They said they did believe they would obtain substantial justice from the three Judges; but they did not believe they would receive substantial justice from the special juries, because everyone knew that when once political matter arose in any issue submitted to a jury the jury could not be depended upon. He asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether it was not a fact that, so far as his knowledge of Irish affairs extended, the probabilities were that these special jurymen would be chosen from amongst the ranks of the landlords or the classes connected with them? That was his strong objection to the clause. He thought that, considering the Executive had power to bring people to trial by three Judges without a jury, they might, at least, have carried out their first intention, and have left out this clause, which the Home Secretary himself admitted to be an after-thought, and one which only occurred to him after the Bill had been submitted to the House, and was about to be read for the first time.
  MR. R. POWERregarded the clause as the most important one in the Bill, and he believed it would be certain to be called most into operation. The difficulty was that the Bill was an agglomeration of about 20 Acts of Parliament, and not a Bill per se, a fact which amply justified Irish Members in the course they had taken with reference to it. He asked hon. Members, with regard to this clause, who complained of the conduct of Irish Members in opposing the Bill, whether, if such a measure were introduced into this country, they would not have spent three times as long as Irish Members had done in discussing the Constitutional principles involved? Another difficulty was that the jurors had protested against their abolition, while the Judges had protested against becoming jurors. He believed the Government would find themselves awkwardly placed if they relied too much on the operation of this clause in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland said either the Crown or the accused had the right to have the case

  1447
  tried by a special jury. Well, supposing the prisoner applied for a special jury, if the Crown opposed him, would he get the special jury?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): He is entitled to exercise his right to apply for it.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, then it might be taken that there would almost always be special jurors to try cases under the Act. He was glad it was to he the arrangement that wherever a prisoner applied for a special jury he would get it, and that the Crown would have no power to oppose him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)was understood to signify assent.
  MR. R. POWERregarded this as a most valable acquisition to the prisoner; it took away a great deal of the injury which, he believed, might be done by the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Will the hon. Member allow me to explain?
  MR. R. POWERbegged the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to do that. He was quite satisfied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the purpose of the clause was to maintain trial by jury; but it was difficult to imagine a more extraordinary means of doing that than the proposal before the Committee. The statement was that jurymen of a higher class were wanted; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went to those whom he (Mr. R. Power) maintained were not fit to try the cases that would come before them under the Bill; and, further, he said, if the object of the Government was to maintain trial by jury, this could be easily accomplished by bringing in a short measure for the purpose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that trial by jury in Ireland had failed. To a certain extent, no doubt, it had failed; but he denied that it had done so in respect of the majority of offences specified in the Bill. One of the offences so specified was treason or treason-felony, and he defied the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show any cases in which trial by jury in Ireland for this offence had failed to any extent. He remembered that, in 1866 and 1867, with one or two exceptions, all the persons charged with treason or
  1448
  treason-felony were found guilty by the juries. If the Bill were only applied to offences of a certain kind, he would not have the same objection to it as he had now; but its application to offences in respect of which juries had not failed to convict was most unfair to the jurors, and would probably cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in Ireland. However, as the Attorney General for Ireland had completely satisfied him upon the chief point as to which he desired an explanation, and as he knew the right hon. and learned Gentleman always adhered to anything he said in that House, he would not detain the Committee further than for the purpose of thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the statement he had made, and of expressing his own opinion that the conviction of one man by jury would tend more to the tranquillity of a country than the conviction of three men by a Special Commission Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had stated that, in certain cases, the Crown on one side, and the accused on the other, could apply for trial by special jury. He had said nothing whatever in reference to cases which were not to be tried by jury, and to which this clause did not apply. The Commission of Judges under the 1st clause was specially provided to be without jury.
  MR. M'COANasked in what cases the accused would have the right of electing to be tried by the Judges for offences under Clause 1?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, no person could have the option of electing to be tried by a Special Commission. That rested entirely with the Executive. It was in the option of the Representative of the Crown or the accused to claim to have the cases described in the clause tried by special juries.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that, knowing how cleverly juries were sometimes packed, he had not been so much opposed as others to the 1st clause of the Bill, which abolished trial by jury in certain cases specified. That clause empowered the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a Special Commission Court of three Judges to try charges of treason or treason-felony, murder or manslaughter, attempt to kill, aggravated crime of

  1449
  violence against the person, arson, whether by Common Law or by Statute, and attack on dwelling-house. That being so, why, in the name of common sense, did the Government want a special jury to try other cases? It appeared to him that the Bill would, on political occasions, be worked to the disadvantage of the prisoner. If a prisoner was to be tried in the counties of Cork or Limerick, the Government would send down a Special Commission for the purpose; but in the North of Ireland, where the Catholics were in a minority, and where the Liberal Party would also soon be in a minority, they would send the prisoner before a special jury. It would then be seen how little mercy a Catholic would get at the hands of the Presbyterians. In his opinion, a Catholic would be better protected by a Commission of Judges than by such a jury. An Ulster special jury composed of Presbyterians, even if a man charged with murder before them were not guilty, would hold him guilty of constructive murder, as Irish Members had been held guilty of constructive Obstruction.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that this clause had no relation to the 1st clause of the Bill, or to the offences which were to be tried by the three Judges. Moreover, he understood him to say that the clause gave an alternative to the trial by the three Judges. The clause said that in the case of indictable offences which were only tried at the Assizes, it would be at the option of the Attorney General or the prisoner to elect that the case should be tried by a special jury. But the 1st clause of the Bill selected a certain number of grave Assize offences, and said that the Lord Lieutenant might elect to have those offences tried by a Special Commission Court of three Judges; and surely it was correct to say that the new clause practically gave the power in one case to the Attorney General and in the other to the Lord Lieutenant to say whether they would have these cases tried by the Special Commission Court or by special jury, only if they did not elect to have a case tried by the three Judges the prisoner would then have the option of trial by special jury. Surely, then, it was cor-
  1450
  rect to describe this as an alternative clause.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had pointed out that any indictable offence might be tried by special jury, whether or not it was one of the offences included in the 1st clause of the Bill, and which it was intended to deal with in a particular manner. Did the Government intend that such an offence as fraudulent bankruptcy, for instance, should be dealt with in a different manner than at present? He thought the Government should introduce some words limiting the number of indictable offences in order to avoid confusion.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, it would only have been fair and right that this clause, which proposed a general amendment of the Irish Jury Law, should have been submitted to the House when the Bill was first proposed. He considered it unreasonable that, in this sudden manner, the Government should have thus proposed a question of such grave importance for the consideration of the Committee wearied with the lengthened discussions which had taken place. Trial by jury in Ireland at the present moment was not satisfactory; on the contrary, he admitted that in many respects it had failed. But if it had failed it had not done so to any such extent as would justify the introduction of the remedy suggested by the clause. His hon. Friend near him was right in saying that, in point of fact, under this clause, the Attorney General might have every indictable offence committed in Ireland tried by special jury, and in any locality he pleased. The clause was not restricted to agrarian offences; it extended to every possible indictable offence. Now, before the Committee conceded so extensive a power as that, he asked them to consider the necessities of the case; and he would remind them of a remarkable statement of the Prime Minister made last year, which would be found recorded in Hansard, to the effect that in Ireland, where it was said no jury could be got in agrarian cases to convict on the clearest evidence, the number of convictions for criminal outrages were in larger proportion than in England.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair

  1451
  to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
  New Clause (Special jurors in criminal cases).—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. METGEcomplained that one of the greatest difficulties Irish Members had to contend with was the diversity of opinion on the Treasury Bench with regard to the legal meaning of the commonest words in the Bill. Upon this clause there had been two distinct interpretations. The Attorney General for Ireland, when interrogated by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), stated positively that under this clause it would be possible for a person charged with an offence to have his case tried by a special jury. On two occasions he rose to support that view, and when he was pressed closely upon it he said he did not mean to exclude such cases as were excluded under the previous clause of the Act. But, even allowing that exclusion, it would be seen that the question, raised was evaded, because if cases were excluded which were to come under the jurisdiction of the Special Commission Court of Part I. of the Bill, that would exclude practically everything that it would be possible to put before a special jury, for that Special Commission Court dealt with all cases of treason, treason-felony, murder, manslaughter, attempts to kill, violence against the person, and attacks on dwelling-houses. He should like to ask the Committee, or any hon. Member who was inclined to take a fair view of the case, to say what crime could be brought before this Court other than those set out in the first part of the Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman further said that an appeal was possible to any individual who chose to claim his right to have his case tried as a special jury case; but on reading the remainder of Part I. it seemed to him that that course was impossible. It provided that whenever it appeared to the Lord Lieu-
  1452
  tenant that the case of any person committed for trial could not get a just and impartial consideration under the ordinary law, the Lord Lieutenant might by warrant direct the case to be tried without a jury. If the Lord Lieutenant could do that, it was absurd to pretend that the accused could use the right which the Attorney General for Ireland had said he could exercise in order to get a special jury. What the assurance of the Attorney General for Ireland amounted to was that the accused had a right to claim a special jury in every case, except where the Crown did not choose to give it. That was rather a wide order, and, knowing as he did how this Bill might be carried out, it was absurd to contend for a moment that this right would be given to an accused person when it remained with the Crown in any case they thought of sufficient consequence to direct that it should be tried under a special warrant without a jury. This clause effected an entire change in the legislative system which now prevailed in Ireland. Only a short time ago the jury system in Ireland was to a certain extent reformed by, he believed, the Act of a Member of the Party which now sought to alter the Grand Jury system again. Under Lord O'Hagan's Act the qualification of jurors was to a great extent brought within the limits of the sense of justice which prevailed as to the persons it was proper to call upon to try cases; but this Bill did away entirely with the old qualification, and imported a qualification of special jurors. Everybody knew what a special jury meant, and that cases tried by special juries would practically be tried by a jury, not of the peers of an accused person, but of the very persons who were actually exercising the Executive functions with regard to this Bill. The initiative in all cases which came under this Bill was with the Lord Lieutenant; but, as a matter of fact, it would really reside in the country gentlemen and magistrates, who would have to collect, with the aid of the police, evidence in support of the claims they made for exceptional powers being applied to the district over which they had control. To a great extent the special juries in Ireland were composed of these very magistrates. The qualification of special jurors was pretty high, and would bring in a class of men entirely without any accord with the na-

  1453
  tional sentiments of the people, and, on the contrary, entirely opposed to those sentiments. Consequently, their verdicts would be felt to be of a partizan character. The Attorney General for Ireland seemed to think that the working of the Bill would be carried out, not only by a Special Commission, but by these special juries under this clause. The charge brought by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a legitimate one—namely, that this was a dark horse kept in the background to be slipped on the Committee when it had already decided the question of a Special Commission Court. The Attorney General for Ireland had made a very sweeping charge against the jury system in Ireland. He (Mr. Metge) did not pretend for a moment that the system was perfect, for he knew that juries did not convict in many cases where they might; but the reason of that was that the juries felt that the law, as it existed in Ireland, was not justice. Law and justice were two distinct and absolutely opposed things in Ireland. But, admitting that the juries sometimes did not carry out the law in the way they might be expected to, still, before the Attorney General for Ireland brought such a sweeping charge against the juries, and introduced into that charge the names of certain Judges as backing him up in his statements, he should have referred to some other statements made by Judges to quite the contrary effect. He had a strong recollection of some observations made at the Cork Assizes by Judge Barry, who, in charging the jury, said he had no possible complaint to make against the juries who had been called to decide cases brought before him. Judge Barry referred at the same time to charges made by Members of the Government, and by Liberal Members of the House, against the jury system as it at present existed, and he said most carefully that such a charge was unfounded, and that in a great majority of cases where evidence was brought before the juries they convicted. The argument all through this Coercion Bill was not that Irish juries could not be got to convict, but that evidence could not be obtained, and special juries would not deal with cases without evidence any more than ordinary juries. Special juries would,
  1454
  after all, be juries composed of gentlemen; and they, no more than the Judges of the Special Commission Court or juries under the old system, would condemn a man unless sufficient evidence was brought to establish the case against him. In this respect he thought the Government were altogether astray. They sought, by complicated and roundabout methods, to get at criminals whom they never could reach. The sympathy that existed to a certain extent in Ireland with crime would never, he believed, be overcome except by the extermination of the whole Irish people, unless the root of crime was struck at by sweeping away the system of landlordism—the system of class against class—and by sweeping away the system of Castle rule, which had caused a mesh of incongruities around the whole political system in Ireland. The men who constituted the leading authorities were men all more or less interested in supporting the present state of things; and consequently men could not but feel that, as long as that state of things remained, no system would strike at crime which did not strike through the people themselves. No one in that House had a stronger desire or would go further than he would to get crime suppressed; but crime in Ireland, much as he detested and deplored it, was the outcome of a state of warfare—a state of warfare between class and class—and that warfare would never be got at by indirect machinery such as that proposed by this clause. The argument of the Attorney General for Ireland might generally be taken as an argument against the jury system as a whole. He believed that that House, which had Liberal principles and Liberal doctrines, and which had been put in subjugation to the Caucus influence exercised by the Leaders of the Government, would be a long time before it agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Attorney General for Ireland had expressed his surprise that cases connected with the rights of property were submitted to juries composed of higher class men, while cases of life and death were committed to common juries. He (Mr. Metge) thought that in cases of actual crime and murder the facts were more or less patent to everyone, and did not require strongly technical minds to discriminate between the

  1455
  niceties of the evidence on one side or the other, but simply fair, honest intelligence to decide whether or not such facts justified a verdict for or against the accused. That consideration was a strong reason for submitting cases of fact to a jury. He wished to point out to the Committee the anomalies which existed all through this Bill. It was certainly strange and unjust to say that the powers under this Bill were, first of all, to be conferred on a Judicature which was to be chosen by ballot; and, secondly, that cases were to be decided by a jury likewise to be chosen by ballot. If justice was reduced to a mere question of ballot, no Irishman could be expected to have any lofty idea of what the effects of an administration of that justice would be. Irishmen generally could not, as the law at present existed, have any very great respect for it; but they had respect for laws meaning justice, and no people in the world had a higher respect for law which gave justice between man and man; but law representing the outcome of a series of ballot boxes would not receive any very great respect from the Irish people. When the Government introduced this Bill they professed to desire to appease the feeling existing in the country; but in bringing forward this Special Jury Clause they did not show any sign of contrition for trying to impose upon the Committee, knowing that the large majority at their back would enable them to force their proposal upon the Irish Members. For three years to come Ireland would be without a vestige of Constitutional principles. The right of public meeting had been swept away, the right of expression of public opinion through the Press had been swept away, and now the Government came down and sought to destroy what was once considered the highest glory in the British Constitution—namely, the jury system.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the object of the clause was to entirely supersede the earlier clause with regard to the Judges. In introducing the Bill the Government had not made any preliminary inquiries as to whether or not the Judges approved of the duty proposed to be placed upon them, for the Judges themselves protested against being put into the new position. The Government now introduced this clause
  1456
  which, in conjunction with the next clause, would, they hoped, effectually enable them to get convictions, whether with or without evidence. With regard to this question of special juries, the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland, of course, made the best arguments they could in favour of the case which their clients put before them; but special juries in Ireland were composed of persons of such standing with regard to rates as the Sub-Sheriff chose to summon, so that, in point of fact, under this clause, there was a great appearance of fairness. But, in the first instance, the Sheriffs would select the safe and good men whom they knew, from their prejudices, would be in favour of convictions, and from these a jury would be selected by ballot. If the object of that process was avowedly to get convictions with or without evidence, as it seemed to be, there would be no great reason to complain or to object to this clause. In reality, juries would be selected by ballot who would be likely to convict. Even supposing the special juries were impartial, they would be selected from a high rate-paying class who were likely to have prejudices against men put on trial for criminal offences, and for that reason there would not be anything approaching to a fair chance of acquittal. The fault found with the jury system was that impartial juries could not be had. In this case the Government selected juries likely to convict, and then they asked the Committee to believe that this was a fair tribunal. During the early stages of the Bill some criticism was made upon the Irish Judges; but a considerable number of the Irish Party were strongly of opinion that they would prefer three Judges, as proposed, to the system which was recommended in this new clause—namely, that of packed juries. There was nothing the Irish people were more afraid of than packed juries, because those men had their responsibilities limited to such a degree that each thought that if he came to a different decision from the others he would be held very much in fault. Weak men would be led by the will of the majority, and although they might hold a different opinion from their colleagues they would not have the moral courage to insist upon what they considered justice. For these reasons the Irish Mem-

  1457
  bers would prefer to have nothing to do with this clause, but to depend upon the justice which would be administered by three Judges instead of by special juries.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONpointed out that if all cases were tried at Assizes by special juries there would arise an inconvenient opposition between cases committed to Assizes and those committed to Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions had a very large jurisdiction, and it would be very inconvenient if magistrates, thinking they could get convictions better at Assizes than at Quarter Sessions, should send to the Assizes prisoners who, in the ordinary course, would be tried at Quarter Sessions. If the Government would consider that point and pay some regard to the views of the Irish gentlemen and noblemen who sat on the Irish juries and had reported that instead of juries being entirely special juries it would be well to mix them, they would get rid of this difficulty.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second, time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated, he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Seven Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he thought it convenient to announce, before the doors were opened, that it was at the option of the Chairman to require Members to rise in their places either at the first putting of the Question, or after the hour-glass. Hitherto he had required the hour-glass to be turned, but in future he would exercise the option.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved a new clause with regard to the penalty for non-attendance of special jurors. He explained that at present under the Act of 1876, jurors who failed to attend when their names were called at the opening of the Criminal Commission, were fined 40 s. There were, however, numbers of people who would rather pay this amount than serve on the jury,
  1458
  and the object of his proposal was to substitute for 40 s., the sum of £20, in order to reach the rich as well as the poor in regard to the duties of jurors.
  New Clause:—
  (Penalty for non-attendance of special jurors.)
  "The words 'twenty pound' shall be substituted for the words 'forty shillings' in section four of 'The Juries Procedure Ireland Act, 1876,' in the case of special jurors."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no sufficient reason for the change in the law which he proposed by this clause. As he understood it, the clause proposed to force into the jury-box a certain number of gentlemen who had a great disinclination to serve; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, if he succeeded in that object, what would be the feelings of the jurors who went into the box simply because they knew that if they did not they would have to pay £20. Of course, by an Act of Parliament, a great many extraordinary things might be done; but by Act of Parliament a man could never be forced to do his duty. If a man, in the first instance, was not prepared to do the duty which the State imposed upon him, it would be utterly impossible by such a clause as this to force him to do it by imposing the alternative of a fine of £20. By this and previous provisions of the Act the people of Ireland had been coerced, and now it was proposed, without the slightest reason, to coerce the particular men who were to try accused persons. The only argument he could find in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland for this proposal was that certain difficulty was found in bringing jury men into the box to try cases; but under this Bill that difficulty no longer existed, because every man must admit that there could be no very great objection to go into a jury-box, inasmuch as there would be no evidence put before him. That was the fatal mistake the Government had made in this provision. Tribunals might be established, but evidence could not be brought forward. No man in the House regretted

  1459
  more than he did that stubborn fact; but it could not be got rid of by a clause of this kind. Jurymen might be forced into the box, but they could not be made to convict; and why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have raised the penalty from 40 s. to £20 was beyond his conception.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought he should have to stand up against the clause, as that was the only resource the Government had left to them. He believed, however, its effect, taken in connection with the Irish Act, would be to oblige Judges to impose the penalty—the very serious penalty—of £20 in every case. He would suggest that the penalty should be left to the discretion of the Judge, who might wish to increase it, but who might also wish to inflict a smaller one.
  MR. METGEsaid, it seemed to him that the Committee were being coerced into passing a series of Amendments which would repeal the existing law. This was a proposal of considerable importance; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought it necessary to give any reason for the proposal. He certainly had said that the object was to force the rich to take their part in the duties of jurymen in conjunction with their poorer neighbours. He himself should only be too glad to see the rich take their full share; but even if that was an argument, the clause, as it now stood, would have quite the contrary effect, because, while £20 was a matter of trifling consideration to the rich when their lives and property might be endangered by their serving on a jury, the risk of a penalty of that amount would be a grave consideration to the poor man. Therefore, instead of forcing the rich to take their part in serving on juries, this clause would only force into the box the poor man, who would be afraid to sustain such a heavy fine. If that was the only reason the Attorney General for Ireland had in favour of this clause, it was not sufficient to make the Committee lie down in humble submission and grovel in the dust before the Treasury Bench, and to introduce into the Irish jury system an entirely new element, and thereby, to a great extent, repeal the existing law.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, although as a rule he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr.
  1460
  Labouchere), he could not concur with him in his present suggestion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) was wrong in thinking that in principle this clause was different from the existing law. The Jury Act in Ireland fixed a maximum fine of 40 s. which the Judge could not reduce, and in that respect it was different to the Jury Law in England; but it must be remembered that this professed to be only a provisional Bill, and there was a different state of things in Ireland to that in England. It was not an agreeable thing to be a juryman in Ireland, for everyone knew that men who had to discharge that duty did so, not only at inconvenience, but at great peril to himself, and if the fine was to be reduced, especially in regard to people who were to form the special juries, there must be a high minimum. It was not, however, as the hon. Member opposite seemed to suppose, that there would be a fine of £20 on a man of moderate means, and only the same amount on a man of greater means, because, if the Judge was of opinion that the man of large means was unduly absent, this fine of £20 was not a maximum. The Judge might impose a fine of £100 or £500 on the rich man who declined to do his duty. It only applied the principle of a minimum in view of the special circumstances in regard to juries in Ireland. He thought this clause was necessary and entitled to acceptance.
  MR. CALLANregarded the argument of the Home Secretary as a very peculiar one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the clause would be limited as against the poor man, but not as against the rich man. He thought, however, that the Home Secretary had not read the Act which this clause proposed to amend. In fact, the only excuse for the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an utter ignorance of the practice laid down in the Act. According to the present practice, all jurors failing to answer to the calling over of the panel were marked down by the Sheriff as not having attended, and could be ordered to pay a fine of 40 s., or such other larger sum as the Court, under the circumstances, thought fit, even if there was no business for the jury to perform. Now, if there were an important trial, and notice were given that a larger attendance of jurors was

  1461
  required, had not the Judge full power to inflict a larger penalty up to £20? But in the clause of the Attorney General for Ireland, the Judge in Ireland would be deprived of all discretion. There was no option left with him, in a case where a juror did not answer, even though, there might be no business in Court requiring his attendance, the Judge would be obliged to impose a fine of £20. They in Ireland had been recently progressing from a bad Government to a worse Government, and from that to a worst of all Government. A Select Committee having sat to consider the Act of 1871—called Lord O'Hagan's Act—in 1876, a Conservative Government passed a measure amending the procedure, and giving the Judge a discretionary power up to 40 s., but limiting the extent of his power to fine jurors to that sum. What, however, did the present beneficent Government do? It did what the Conservative Government refused to do; it took away from the Judge all discretion in the matter, it did not allow him to excuse even a juror who might be ill, but compelled him to impose a fine. Many of the farmers in Ulster who were special jurors were not only poor, but ignorant. The constituents of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, who so readily swallowed the bait "Improvement of the Land Act," would be, if they failed to attend when called upon to act as jurors, each fined £20. Was there a Judge in Ireland who, if he saw an opportunity of imposing a larger fine than that at present allowed, would hesitate to impose it to compel the attendance of jurors?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not see why the Government made this alteration—there was not the slightest reason for it. In his opinion, the law, as it stood, gave authority to the Judge to impose as heavy a fine as was desirable for the non-attendance of a juryman. So far as he (Mr. Biggar) had seen, the custom was, when the names were called over, for the Judge to order a small fine, say of £5, to be inflicted in the case of a juror who did not answer; and if that was not sufficient to induce attendance, then to order a larger fine, and so on, until the juror was forced to put in an appearance. What was now proposed by the Government was to do away with the option of
  1462
  the Judge, and to render it imperative that in all cases a fine should be imposed. He (Mr. Biggar) did not seethe advantage of the alteration. The Home Secretary had told them, or at least had suggested to them, that there should be a large fine inflicted upon a juror who was wealthy, and a small one upon a juror who was poor; but how was a Judge, sitting on the Bench, to form an opinion as to the means of a juror, who would certainly not be a person of his acquaintance? All the information the Judge would have would come from the Clerk of the Peace, who would call over the jury panel. It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that this clause was not worth the trouble of passing it. He could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) with regard to the position in life of some of the special jurors. He had heard of a case in County Antrim where a person, who was a special juror and also a grand juror, first performed his duties as a grand juror, and then took part in the business of the Assizes as a special juror, for the purpose of receiving the fee of a guinea. There could be no doubt about this having happened, for it appeared in the records of the Assizes. The difference between a 40 s. fine and a £20 fine was very substantial. The Amendment would do no practical good, and might impose some hardship and injustice on some persons.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and Four Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he wished to point out that it was very unfair—he did not mean this in any personal sense—for the Chairman to call on Members to rise in their places, without having first rung the bell.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I have already explained to the Committee that, according to the Rule, the Chairman has an option in the matter. The hon. Member is now questioning the fairness of the Rule, and, in doing so—in discussing the Rule—he is quite out of Order.
  MR. METGEsaid, on the point of Order he wished to know whether there were any means by which they could give notice to their Friends outside of what was taking place?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I have already explained that the Rule gives an option to the Chairman as to whether or not the bell shall be rung, so that the time of the Committee may be saved.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the Chairman gave an opportunity to the Government to bring in Members from outside by ringing the bell on ordinary occasions, and he (Mr. Storey) thought the same opportunity should be given to other Members.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had to move the second reading of a new clause, which was technically called "Venue," and which, as that title implied, was to enable the venue to be changed in the case of persons awaiting their trial for indictable offences under the Act. The practice of changing the venue was one familiar to every person acquainted with the law as having been in use from the earliest times. He did not think it was necessary for him to detain the Committee further than to point out that the clause contained provisions in favour of the accused which, so far as his experience or reading went, had never been contained in any similar Act. The object, of course, of enabling the place of trial to be changed was to take care that a fair trial should be had in a case where popular feeling in the neighbourhood of the crime was strongly either against or in favour of the accused, and it was not likely that an honest verdict would be returned by a jury taken from the locality. The trial in the place to which the venue was changed would take place under exactly the same conditions as it would if it had occurred in the district where there was a bias for or against the prisoner. The clause provided that the expenses of the accused going to the place of trial should be defrayed by the Government of the day, and also that where the accused was not in funds, and, therefore, was unable to take his witnesses to the place of trial, provision should be made for the Crown Solicitor, under the Attorney General for Ireland, to supply the necessary amount. The sub-section to which he referred said—
  1464
  "Where an order of the High Court is made under this Act directing a change of venue, the prescribed Crown Solicitor, or other prescribed officer under the direction of the Attorney General, shall provide, where necessary, for advancing money for enabling the person to be tried, and the witnesses required for the defence of such person to attend the trial."
  So that, for all purposes, the trial would take place in the altered place of trial under conditions similar to those which would obtain if the trial took place in the original place.
  New Clause—
  (Venue.)

  "(1.) The Attorney General, on making application to the High Court of Justice, and certifying that in his opinion it is expedient, in the interests of justice, that a person awaiting his trial for an indictable offence should be tried in some county named in the certificate other than the county in which he would otherwise be tried, shall be entitled as of right to an order directing such person to be tried in the county named in the certificate; and, if such order is made before any indictment or inquisition has been found, the said offence may be inquired of in the county named in the order in like manner in all respects as if it had been committed in that county; and, if the order is made after an indictment or inquisition has been found, the indictment or inquisition shall be transmitted to the court of assize for the county named in the order, and have effect as if it had originally been duly found at or returned to that court; and, in either case, the offence may be heard and determined, and the person charged with the said offence may be convicted and sentenced as if the offence had been committed in the county named in the order, but the sentence of the court shall be carried into effect as if such person had been tried in the county in which he would have been tried if the said order had not been made, and such person shall, if necessary, be removed accordingly, in pursuance of an order of the court made for the purpose.

  (2.) The Lord Lieutenant shall from time to time provide for the payment, if an order is made under this section respecting the trial of any person, of the reasonable expenses of such person coming to the place at which, in pursuance of such order, he is to be tried in any case where he was admitted to bail, and also of the witnesses required for the defence of such person, and certified by the court before whom he is tried to be so required.

  (3.) Where an order of the High Court is made under this Act directing a change of venue, the prescribed Crown Solicitor or other prescribed officer under the direction of the Attorney General shall provide, where necessary, for advancing money for enabling the person to be tried and the witnesses required for the defence of such person to attend the trial.

  (4.) For the purposes of this section the expression 'awaiting his trial' means committed for trial or charged with any indictable offence by indictment or inquisition; and 'court of assize' includes any court of over and terminer

  1465
  or gaol delivery."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. R. POWERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the prisoner's expenses would be paid—it might be to Van Dieman's Land. To his (Mr. Power's) mind it was absurd to tell a prisoner, because they wanted to try him in the North of Ireland, that his expenses were to be paid. If a prisoner from the South of Ireland had his own choice he would much rather be tried in his own locality than in the North, because in the former place he would be known and there would be no improper prejudice against him. The Attorney General for Ireland was to have the power of changing the venue. Well, take the case of the present Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House of Commons to-night, and, supposing there was a trial to-morrow, say, in County Waterford, how on earth was he to know that Galway would be a better place to try it in than Waterford? Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to depend upon information supplied to him by the Crown Solicitor, or the County Inspector, or the Resident Magistrate. The principle of relying upon others for information was one which went right through this Bill. County Waterford might be a very bad place or a very good place to try a certain case, but he (Mr. R. Power) objected to all the power of the law being thrown on the side of the Government in the matter; and there was another objection to this clause—namely, the expense that it would incur. There must be great expense in bringing a prisoner from one part of Ireland to another. And not only had they to bring a prisoner from one part of Ireland to another, but they would also have to remove all the witnesses. If a man from the South was going to be tried in the North of Ireland, that man would ask for as many witnesses as he could possibly get, and he would be able to get their expenses paid all over the country. It was not stated at all in the Bill out of what fund these expenses would be paid. In the
  1466
  24th clause it was stated that the money would be paid out of a sum to be provided by Parliament; but Parliament had not told them where the money was to come from, and it was very likely that they would find presently that it would come from some unfortunate pauperized Irishmen. As to what would be the operation of this clause, let them take the case of a Catholic in the South of Ireland. Supposing a man there was reasonably suspected, say of treason or treason-felony, was it fair that they should bring such a person up to the North to be tried in a district where party feeling ran very high, and where he (Mr. Power) regretted to say there was a great deal of wretched religious discord? On the other hand, would it be fair that they should bring a man from the North of Ireland down to the South, where also, he regretted to say, there was not that amount of liberty of religious opinion that there ought to be? Let them take the case of a poor tenant in Mayo. If they brought him into a district where there were a great many landlords and people of a class opposed to him, he would be hardly likely to get a fair trial. In cases where the venue was changed the Attorney General for Ireland would, of course, take very good care to change it to a district where the prisoner would stand a very good chance of being convicted—and justly so, in all probability, because the Attorney General for Ireland would hardly put a man upon his trial unless he was convinced he was guilty. Then, the clause would work great hardship in peaceful districts. They would bring prisoners from disturbed localities into quiet, peaceful places. Men belonging to districts where there was no crime would be appointed on juries, and would have to devote a great deal of their time, and probably thereby sacrifice a large amount of money, to the trying of prisoners. What would be the effect of that kind of thing? Why, the effect would be simply to exasperate the people. He knew it was of very little use to appeal to justice in cases of this sort. He had long ago lost hope or expectation of getting anything from the English Government, but he still felt bound to enter his protest against this proposed new clause. He believed it would be worked in a most dangerous and injurious manner, and he thought that in a year's time

  1467
  there would be proof before the Government that he (Mr. Power) and his Friends were perfectly right in the opposition they were now offering.
  MR. METGEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, when he rose to make the best case he could on behalf of this extraordinary clause, dwelt, with a considerable amount of tact, on the great advantage the provision would be likely to bestow upon the mock justice that was to be established in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the great advantage prisoners would derive from having their railway, hotel, and other expenses paid when they were, so to speak, dragged about the country according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's discretion. But, notwithstanding the so-called advantages, if the Committee thought it worth while to look into the Bill, they would see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would have absolute power, in his discretion, of altering the venue of trials from one part of Ireland to another. The extent of that power could not be exaggerated. Under the law as it at present existed, the Attorney General for Ireland could not change the venue of a case from one county to another without having previously applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for permission. At any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to apply to one of the highest Courts of the land, and, no doubt, in such a case the Bench exercised a certain discretion in the matter; but, under the clause, the necessity of applying to a Court was done away with. The clause certainly said something about application being made to a Court of Justice; but it seemed to him (Mr. Metge) that that would be little less than making a Court the register of the will of the Attorney General for Ireland. The clause said that—
  "The Attorney General, on making application to the High Court of Justice, and certifying that in his opinion it is expedient in the interests of justice that a person awaiting his trial for an indictable offence should he tried in some county named in the certificate other than the county in which he would otherwise be tried, shall be entitled as of right to an order directing such person to be tried in the county named in the certificate."
  It would be seen, therefore, that appli-
  1468
  cation to the High Court of Justice was little better than a mere form. Discretion and power of sifting evidence would remain with the Attorney General, and the High Court of Justice would have very little voice in the matter, and very little time to go into considerations of that sort. The hardship of this clause had been dwelt on by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power); but in spite of what the hon. Member said, he (Mr. Metge) thought that Englishmen could have very little idea of the kind of hardship that might arise under such a law in Ireland. In Ireland, North and South, East and West, were unfortunately divided by strong religious convictions. These convictions had a strong political bias. The people were fanatically tenacious of the opinions in which they had been educated and brought up; and while, on the one hand, the Attorney General for Ireland informed them that the object of the clause was to obtain fair trial, he (Mr. Metge) and his Friends, on the other hand, believed that a fair trial by this means would be utterly impossible. The provision meant simply that a criminal might be brought from a county where, perhaps, he was known, and where in all probability he had some character, and where he might, therefore, look for some amount of justice, to a place where he was unknown, where his character was suspected, and where he would be tried by a class of jurymen opposed to him religiously, politically, socially, and in every sympathy and sentiment and educational habit of their lives. Take, for instance, the case of a National Catholic in Ireland. He did not suppose that in the view of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite to be a Catholic and a Nationalist was a sin; but still a man to whom that description would apply, who was arrested for a crime of which he was entirely innocent, if he were taken before a jury of rampant Ulster Protestants, would stand a very poor chance. He (Mr. Metge) did not want to say a word on one side or the other as to the religious bias that would be set to work by this clause. He thought it was a terrible pity that such a state of things should exist in Ireland; but they must take the facts as they were. How could anyone for a moment suppose that in such a case as that he had described the trial would be a fair one? He did not

  1469
  suppose that on one side or the other there would be a deliberate attempt to do an injustice; but human nature was human nature, and what was considered criminal by one class of men would be an absolute religion to another class. In the South, Nationalism was the highest aspiration of the people; but in the North, amongst the Protestant Loyalists, it would be a thing most criminal, and no matter how trivial a political offence might be, if a Southern Catholic were taken to the North the religious or political element was bound to act, to a certain extent, against him, and to a certain extent to influence the decision of a jury. If it were not to take advantage of that state of feeling, he could not for the life of him see why this clause was introduced. It seemed to him that the principle of changing the venue was a most dangerous one, and he would point out to the Members of the Liberal Party that there was something that lay very near the surface in this matter, and it was this—that if the clause were allowed to pass as it at present stood, it would leave the liberties of every man who would be tried under the provisions of the Act absolutely at the discretion of the Attorney General for Ireland. He (Mr. Metge), for one, for the reasons he had attempted to explain, felt himself justified in opposing the clause to the utmost of his ability. He believed that trial under this Bill would be altogether a sham and a farce; but, sham and farce as it might be, he contended there was no provision of it which more directly struck at the faint scintilla of justice that still might influence the juries than the fact that the Attorney General for Ireland was empowered to call into operation the political as well as the religious instincts of the people in order to obtain convictions; and he believed that it would perpetuate and increase that animosity and violence of feeling which had for so long a time existed and divided different classes in Ireland one from another. In this House and in England it was considered an unmitigated evil that such differences and distinctions of religion should exist in Ireland; but in that country for centuries class had been deliberately set against class. One religion had been put against another—it had been attempted to hunt one down or drive it off the surface of the land, while the other had been pam-
  1470
  pered and cultivated throughout the country. The religion of the poor had had to pay for the religion of the rich—the rich were left in quiet enjoyment of their religion, whilst the poor had often, been driven for their religious worship into the bogs and fastnesses of the country; and, although these things had occurred some time ago, their effect was still felt throughout the Island. Undoubtedly this clause would again raise all the old bitter hostile feelings. They would again see persons brought to trial from the South and South - West and East to the North. If it were simply a case of wishing to bring home the guilt to criminals, he would not for a moment oppose the clause; but believing, as he did, and backed up in that belief as he was by the deliberate Judgments and well-considered Charges of Judges within the last two years, he maintained that it was absolutely hopeless that fair and righteous verdicts would be given under this provision; therefore, he contended that the provision was altogether unnecessary. As he had said, the clause would really have a worse effect on the general feeling in Ireland than any other part of the Bill. It would bring into direct collision the people of the North and the people of the South, putting, as it did, unlimited power in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland to say where a prisoner should be tried and by whom he should be tried. He contended that it was a clause that every liberal-minded man who had the slightest desire to uphold the principles of justice should do his utmost to defeat.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, with regard to this particular clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had commenced his speech by telling the Committee that it was not required at all. As he (Mr. Biggar) understood it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the matter of changing the venue in criminal cases was no new principle, but that it had always been in operation. Why, therefore, had the clause been introduced? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone on to tell them that some of the provisions of the clause would be exceedingly beneficial to prisoners. Well, he (Mr. Biggar) confessed that some of the provisions would be, at any rate, fair to prisoners. But it was proposed

  1471
  that a prisoner should be taken from the place where he was known and where the alleged offence had been committed, at very great inconvenience to himself and to his witnesses, to some other district where he was not known; although the Government would, as the Attorney General for Ireland had proposed, pay the inevitable expenses of the prisoner and his witnesses. No doubt, so far as the expenses were concerned, the Government had very fairly carried out their pledge; but, at the same time, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland could take any very special credit for the proposal, because they must not forget that the prisoner would not reap any benefit whatever from the change of venue. All he would get would be simply the costs out of pocket. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone on to say that the object of this clause was to obtain a fair trial. He had said that if a prejudice was strong against a prisoner in any particular place, or if there was likely to be a very strong prejudice in his favour, the Crown would apply to have the venue changed. But he (Mr. Biggar) very much feared that in cases where it was found that there was a very strong feeling against the prisoner in a particular district the Crown would not take the trouble to carry the case into another locality, but would let that prejudice against the unfortunate accused have its effect. But if the crime took place in a district where the prisoner was likely to have some friends, the Government would be very likely to apply for a change of venue. The Solicitor General for Ireland would corroborate him when he said in a political and Party case a fair trial could not be had if the venue was changed from the South, say, to County Antrim. He (Mr. Biggar) himself would not be able to get a fair trial at the hands of a County Antrim jury in the borough of Belfast. He had had the pleasure of experience, and the Solicitor General for Ireland knew very well that what he said on that point was perfectly true. This was a clause which would operate injuriously upon prisoners who had no one to speak on their behalf, and whose cases would probably be set down amongst a mass of similar ones in which the grossest injustice would be done. He certainly thought the Govern-
  1472
  ment should not press on a clause of this sort, because it could not possibly have any honest object in view; and its only purpose could be to get convictions where the Government knew that convictions could not be obtained from fair and impartial juries.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said this clause related to what was "technically" called venue. Well, it was both technically and practically, and in every way, venue; therefore, it was not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said, a technical matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given them some historical information, and had stated that from the earliest time the practice of changing the venue had been part of the Criminal Law. No doubt, it had been part of the law of Ireland for a considerable time; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had not informed the Committee that this was the first time it had been attempted to make a Court of Justice the mere register of the will of the Law Officer of the Crown. The Irish Members had had a similar complaint to make in regard to the position of those gentlemen who were called—he did not know on what principle—Resident Magistrates. It had been objected that these gentlemen directed prosecutions and then sat in judgment; but, under this clause, that process would be reversed, and the Attorney General for Ireland would first sit in judgment and then become the prosecutor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would first certify that, in his opinion, it was expedient in the interests of justice that a person awaiting his trial for an indictable offence should be tried in some other county than that in which he would otherwise be tried, and the venue would accordingly be changed; whereas, hitherto, the Attorney General for Ireland had been obliged to make an application to the Court of Queen's Bench, and to obtain the permission of that Court before the venue could be changed. Under the existing law the Court of Queen's Bench could appoint the district in which the trial should take place, and could fix any other conditions they might think fit; but, under the present clause, the Court would have nothing to do but register

  1473
  the decision of the Attorney General for Ireland, who would direct the prosecution, and select what witnesses were to be brought forward, and what were to be kept back.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I do not do that.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not do it personally; but, at any rate, he would do it by his subordinates. After informations had been taken, they could be kept back or produced just as the Attorney General for Ireland thought fit. It would be for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what offence a man was to be charged with, and what offence it was the witnesses were to bear testimony to; and now they gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman the option, if he chose to exercise it, of sending the trial of a Party case from the South to Londonderry or Antrim, or any of those places which had never been known to return a verdict of acquittal in favour of a Catholic. [" No, no!"] Yes, that was the case; these counties were remarkable for convicting Catholics; and it was well known that they were the best places in which the authorities could conduct prosecutions against Catholics and Nationalists. He (Mr. Callan) should have no objection to accepting the clause if discretion were given to the High Court of Justice to refuse the application of the Attorney General for Ireland for a change of venue in cases where they thought his application was not justified, by the circumstances; but if there was to be nothing for them to do but register the behests of the Attorney General for Ireland he should oppose the provision. The present Attorney General for Ireland might exercise the powers of the clause in a just and equitable spirit; but the tenure of Office of Attorney Generals was sometimes very short. An Attorney General might be elevated to the Bench, or, at another Election, might retire into private life, and another Attorney General would be appointed to fill his place. They had had for Attorney Generals such men as the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, who had referred to the "Roman Cement" joining together the Catholic and the Liberal Party—he referred to Chief Justice May, a gentleman who, on another occasion,
  1474
  had the decency to retire from a case in which, before the trial came on, he had given evidence of partiality. Would it be right to have a Catholic politician or a Liberal sent from the South of Ireland to be tried by the denizens of Sandy Row in Belfast, or the free and independent burgesses of Carrickfergus?
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that under Clause 27 there seemed to him to be sufficient power to do what was required without bringing in this provision for changing the venue. Supposing an offence was committed in England, and that the criminal was over in Ireland, he could be brought before one of the Courts in Ireland, which Court could take cognizance of his offence, as it would have been committed within the jurisdiction of that Court. He did not know that any other clause ought to be introduced to extend the power.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and One Member only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Aves had it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he wished to move the next Amendment standing in his name.
  New Clause—
  (Rules for procedure and matters to be prescribed.—Sec. 39 and 40 Vic. c. 57, s. 2; 40 and 41 Vic. c. 57, s. 63.)
  "The Lord Lieutenant may, from time to time, by and with the advice of the Privy Council make, and when made revoke, add to, and alter rules in relation to the following matters:—

  (1.) For adapting the procedure on and preliminary to the trial of criminal cases, including the forms of indictment and other matters, to a special commission court under this Act; and

  (2.) In relation to the procedure on appeals from a special commission court under this Act, and in relation to the sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal under this Act; and

  (3.) In the case of a trial before a special commission court, in relation to the sitting of such court in any place, and to the nomination of officers of such court; and

  (4.) In the case of a trial before a special commission court, or the case where a special jury is required or where the venue is changed in relation to the attendance, authority, and duty of sheriffs, coroners, justices, gaolers, constables, officers, ministers, and persons, the removal and custody of prisoners, the alteration

  1475
  of any writs, precepts, inquisitions, indictments, recognizances, proceedings, and documents, the transmission of inquisitions, indictments, recognizances, and documents, and the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses, and the carrying of sentences into effect; also, in the case where a special jury is required, the number of jurors to be returned on any panel; and

  (5.) In relation to forms for the purposes of this Act. and to any matter by this Act directed to he prescribed; and

  (6.) In relation to any matters which appear to the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice aforesaid, to be necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act; and any rules made in pursuance of this Act shall be of the same validity as if they were contained in this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  MR. BIGGARsaid, on a point of Order he wished to point out that the Chairman had not put the Question in the case of the last clause, "That this Clause be added to the Bill."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The Question is. "That this Clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought it right, out of respect to the High Court of Justice, that the clause should be amended by striking out certain of its words; he thought they should leave out that part of it that made it necessary to make application to the High Court of Justice at all. It did not appear to him respectful that they should make the High Court of Justice a mere register for the proceedings of the Attorney General for Ireland.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): When the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) called my attention to the fact that this clause had not been added to the Bill, I got up and acknowledged my error, and put the Question; it is not, therefore, now in Order for the hon. Member to propose an Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)then moved his clause. He said there was no objection to it, and it was simply to carry out the objects of the Bill.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that about a fortnight ago it was alleged that it might be supposed that trades unions would be affected by this measure. He had replied, and, he thought, accurately, that trades unions would not be affected; but he had pro-
  1476
  mised, in order to make the matter perfectly clear, that he would put in a safeguard. He therefore proposed the following new clause, after Clause 26:—
  New Clause—
  (Saving for trade unions.)
  "No agreement or combination which, under the Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876, or 'The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875,' is legal, shall be deemed to be an offence against this Act."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. METGEsaid, they saw in this Amendment the powerful influence the opinion of the English people had upon the action of the Government, and, by comparison, they saw that no moral demonstration, however great, on the part of the Irish people, had any effect whatever upon them. The only objection he (Mr. Metge) had to the Amendment was that it drew too fine a distinction. It said—
  "No agreement or combination which, under the Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876, or 'The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875,' is legal, shall be deemed to be an offence against this Act."
  On the face of it the proposal seemed to cover a large area of trades unionism, in general; but the Irish Members knew very well that trades unionism had very little life in Ireland at all. Trades unionism, in the old meaning, was unknown in Ireland—they had none of those disgraceful ebullitions of popular feeling which had disgraced almost every town in England, North, South, East, and West—they had none of those rattenings with which the manufacturing towns of England were familiar. However, under the influence of the Liberal Government, latterly a system had cropped up which every honest man must deplore. The system of "Boycotting" was one for which the Irish Members were not responsible, either morally or in any other way. He considered it to be a power too great to put in the hands of an uneducated people; but now that a clause was proposed to exclude trade unions from the operation of the Bill, he should not be doing his duty were he not to point out that there was a system in Ireland which should

  1477
  come under the head of trades unionism, which would be under the force or penalties of this Act. He objected to any distinction being drawn between one form of "Boycotting" and another. No doubt there had been some extreme cases of "Boycotting" in Ireland; but an enraged people had seized upon "Boycotting," or exclusive dealing, as the only weapon they could use in the unequal fight with the forces that were brought against th6m to drive them out of the country. He did not agree with "Boycotting"—he would much rather see men rise with the weapons of war in their hands, and fight their fight in a fair and open way, whatever little chance of success there might be either one way or the other. He did not like an underhand system of warfare; but he objected to see the line drawn as the Government proposed to draw it by this clause. The clause was simply a submission to popular feeling in England. It was a proposal made in consequence of the knowledge the Government had that if trades unionism was brought within the scope of this Bill the trades unionists would rise up as one man directly they thought the measure was likely to be put in the way of any other privileges. The Government knew; they had been told over and over again, they had been told that when they used this Bill for its vilest and most objectionable purposes, if it affected the people of England, a scream would be raised against them that nothing would be able to quell. The Government, in a cowardly and mean manner, had put this clause in the Bill—
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. He did not know whether the Chairman had heard the observation that had fallen from the hon. Member; and, therefore, he would inform him that he (Mr. Metge) had stated that the Government had acted in a cowardly manner, and had used other expressions of that description.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he believed the expression was perfectly Parliamentary—to tell a Government that their political position was a cowardly one. The hon. Member for Meath had not for a moment intended to convey any personal reflection upon the character of any Member of the Government; he had simply applied it to the general policy of the Government. He (Colonel Nolan)
  1478
  did not say that he agreed with the hon. Member; but still the expression was one which was sometimes used.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not suppose that the Government would wish it to be supposed that they objected to the expression from such a quarter.
  MR. METGEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had waited for a moment he would have seen what he (Mr. Metge) meant by the expression he was using. However, he (Mr. Metge) was willing to withdraw the expression, particularly as he had not meant it in a personal sense. Feeling as he did that the Government by their general action had falsified the words that they had uttered over and over again in that House, he thought he was justified in saying, when they brought in a clause of this kind for the purpose of excluding trade unionism, which they knew was a mythical system in Ireland, and which they only proposed in deference to public opinion in England, he was bound to offer the clause his strongest opposition. The system of trades unionism had raised the employed on a level with the employer, and had enabled the hard-working and hard-earning labouring man to meet his employer on equal terms; and in excluding such an organization as that from the Bill they got rid of the objections that the Irish Members would be able to raise against this measure in the towns of England where trades unions had great influence. For these reasons he maintained that, to say the least of it, the action of the Government was underhand. They were trying to cut away the ground from under the feet of the Irish Members with respect to popular feeling in England as to their Irish policy. By inserting this clause they took away the only means the Irish Members would have of drawing attention to the injustice which was inflicted upon the Irish people, because under the Bill they would have an absolute censorship over the Irish Press. The Irish Members would not be able to draw a distinction between the state of things that was allowed to exist under English law and that which was allowed to exist under Irish law. No man opposed more than he did the extremes to which "Boycotting" had been brought in Ireland; but he saw the Irish people driven

  1479
  to the ground, and with only one weapon to defend themselves. He had never supported the use of that weapon, morally or otherwise; but, at the same time, he had never raised his voice against it, because he believed that that, and that alone, had enabled them to keep a hold on the land.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, by this clause it was intended to extend the Trades Union Acts to Ireland. Save in Belfast and Dublin there were, at the present moment, no trades unions in Ireland; but when by this Bill "Boycotting" was to be put down, the wisdom of trades unionism would very naturally occur to the minds of the people. There was a great difference between trades unionism and "Boycotting." The Prime Minister himself had told the Committee that "Boycotting," when it merely meant exclusive dealing, was not illegal. He (Mr. R. Power) would ask how in justice and fairness a man could be sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for exclusive dealing when it had been declared in the House of Commons that exclusive dealing was not illegal? The Government had never yet defined what "Boycotting" was. In his opinion, "Boycotting" was illegal; under this Act it certainly was illegal. As the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) had said, "Boycotting" was a very different thing when used by the higher and educated classes and when used by the poorer classes.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Gentleman is not now addressing himself to the clause, which is that—
  "No agreement or combination which, under the Trade Union Acts 1871 and 1876, or 'The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is legal, shall be deemed to be an offence against this Act."
  MR. P. MARTINthought, from what had been stated, it was probable a different meaning might be attached to the words used in the Amendment from what had been correctly stated as to their legal effect by the Home Secretary. If the clause, then, was to mean nothing, the Home Secretary would be acting well if he withdrew it altogether, for it was nothing but a mockery, a delusion, and, he would add, a snare.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated, he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Members to stand up in their places, and no Member having stood up, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE MR. LABOUCHERE moved in line 3, of new clause, after "legal," insert—
  "Nor any agreement or combination between tenants or between agricultural labourers, of the same description as are permitted between artizans by the above Acts."
  The hon. Gentleman said, he might, perhaps, be permitted to explain what this clause was. He could not find that the Home Secretary had exactly carried out the pledge that had been given by the Government. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland and others from England were under the impression that it was very possible that tenants under certain circumstances might come under the operation of the Intimidation Clauses of this Act. He would give an instance of the way in which that could be done. Suppose that a landlord had a dozen tenants, he (Mr. Labouchere) and others had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whether, if these dozen tenants were to agree together not to pay their rents, unless a reduction were made of 30 per cent, they would come under the operation of this Act? It was thought very possible that they would do so, because they might be brought under the Intimidation Clauses. If he remembered rightly, the Home Secretary said they would not. Of course, he (Mr. Labouchere) and others recognized that if men did not pay their rents they might suffer ejectment, or be subject to some other civil process; or, if they could be brought under the general Law of Conspiracy, they would be able to be indicted for conspiracy. But what the Committee desired to thoroughly understand was, whether tenants who anted as he had described would come under the Intimidation Clause? and he thought the Home Secretary had said they would not. There was, however, a difference of opinion, and the Home Secretary himself had suggested that certain words should be put in. At the same time, it was also suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should put in certain words to exclude trades unions from the operation of the Act. Now, the Home Secretary had

  1481
  put in the words with regard to trade unions, but he had not put in words in regard to the case of tenants which he (Mr. Labouchere) had mentioned. He had supplemented the clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman by words of his own; but he was quite prepared that they should be altered as the Home Secretary might think fit. All he wished was that the understanding which they had previously arrived at should be carried out; and that it should be clearly stated in some part of the Act that the tenants who did unite or agree together not to pay their rents should not be brought under the Intimidation Clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 3, of New Clause, after the word "legal," to insert the words "nor any agreement or combination between tenants or between agricultural labourers, of the same description as are permitted between artizans by the above Acts."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was true that on a former occasion they had had a great deal of discussion upon the points referred to by the hon. Gentleman; but the hon. Gentleman would remember that the agreement of which he had spoken was dealt with by an Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South wark (Mr. Cohen), which was to the effect that the words "in order to" be inserted. The Government accepted that Amendment for the purpose of disposing of the part of the 4th clause with which it dealt. And in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), he had stated previously that he would take care that the Act of 1875 was saved. In reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), he must say that the Government did intend to interfere with "Boycotting," whether it was done by individuals or by combinations of individuals. Beyond that, there was nothing in the Bill that affected any agreement or combination, whether of tenants, or labourers, or anybody else; there was nothing in the Bill which made a combination between any class of persons an offence if it was not an offence against individuals; therefore, he could not see that the Amendment of his hon. friend was at all applicable here.
  MR. P. MARTINsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). If, as he (Mr. Martin) understood from the statements of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, that tenants were to be entitled to combine to the same extent as artizans were permitted under the existing law, the insertion of those words was required to make that intention clear. A question so important ought not to be left in doubt. If, on the contrary, combination or agreement between tenants on a property to pay only a reduced rent was to be made illegal, let it be so expressed. He would not discuss the wisdom or propriety of the principle adopted by the Legislature when passing the Act of 1875. It was not right, by doubtful statements on the part of the Government, to leave the Irish people uncertain what the law was that they had to obey. If the Irish people had been made aware what the law was, and the intention of the Government to enforce its provisions, these difficulties would not have existed with which the Government had now to contend in Ireland. One great reason why this dark cloud now hung over Ireland was that hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Ministerial Gangway had not had the courage to state their real opinions in respect of this matter. Of all things, the Irish people ought to know exactly how far they might legitimately go on the path of Constitutional agitation, and when and under what circumstances what might appear to be legitimate protection of class interests became a crime. In order to force from the Government a clear statement of their views, he was glad this Amendment had been introduced.
  MR. METGEsaid, the best answer the Home Secretary could have given would have been to accept the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had said it would be a great thing if it could be clearly shown to the people of Ireland what the law really was. Anyone who had listened to these debates would certainly be at a loss to know what the Coercion Law was; they would only have a very hazy idea of it. He himself had been in his place almost continuously since the Bill had been under discussion, and he must confess that he had no knowledge of what the law of

  1483
  coercion was. The Home Secretary seemed to think it was quite sufficient if he got up in his place and made certain set arguments against anything the Irish Members, and others who acted with them, might propose. Set arguments, however, would not go down with him (Mr. Metge) and his hon. Friends. If the Home Secretary wished to extend the same power of justice and fair play to combinations in Ireland as he would to those in England, he would accept this Amendment. He (Mr. Metge) did not want crime to exist in Ireland, he wished to see it put down legitimately; but at the same time he wished to see the power left to the people of upholding the principles which had been maintained as their right—upholding them without coming into collision with this Coercion Act. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton would include in the exclusion from the Bill any agreement or combination between tenants, or between agricultural labourers, of the same description as were permitted between artizans by the Trades Unions Acts 1871 and 1876, or the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The tenant farmers of Ireland had now to meet a state of things such as they were never brought face to face with before. They were now brought under the operation of the Land Act introduced by the Prime Minister, and it was proposed to hold out to them the boon of the Arrears Bill. Of the Arrears Bill, he would only say that, in his opinion, it was the most unstatesmanlike measure that he could conceive; it seemed to him to afford the strongest justification for the "no rent" manifesto that could be given. Under the "no rent" manifesto people were advised not to pay their rent, and under the Arrears Bill they were told their rent would be paid for them. There was a respectable body of leaseholders in Ireland who would be entirely shut out from the provisions of that wonderful Bill. The tenant farmers had not only to face the Coercion Law, which would deal with them as criminals if they did, or said, or thought anything which might be construed by the Gentleman at the head of affairs to be an offence under the Act; but they had now to face a combination of landlords. Within the last few days a combination of landlords had been formed for
  1484
  the direct purposes—no matter how disguised those purposes might be—of meeting whatever combination was left amongst the tenant farmers. The tenant farmers were but poor, needy, struggling men, and the landlords were rich and well-to-do men. The latter were allowed to establish a Corporation for the direct purpose of extermination. He did not wish to say a single word that was not justified by fact; but he thought it was proper to estimate the future action of the landlords by what they had done in the past. Hon. Gentlemen had seen that individual landlords had never failed to turn out of the land persons who, by the very Act that this House passed last Session, were proved to have been forced, year after year, to pay rack rents; they had seen the people turned out of their holdings without remedy or redress. If that had been done in the green leaf what would be done in the dry? If individual landlords had done that, what might the Committee expect a Corporation of landlords to do? There would be perfect immunity from extermination by landlords, unless the Government chose to step in, and either restrict in some measure the action of the Corporation of landlords, or give to the tenant farmers and labourers an equal chance of combination and co-operation among themselves. He always desired to see fair play, he liked to see landlords treated as fairly as tenants; and he thought, if combination was allowed on the one side, the least that could be done was to allow combination on the other side. The Home Secretary had brought in a clause excluding trades unions from this Act, and it seemed to him (Mr. Metge) that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) against this clause was a strong one—namely, that the clause was entirely unnecessary. The Home Secretary, however, did not seem to agree with that; the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that unless such a clause was introduced, the powers of this Bill could be used as against trades unions in Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I never said so.
  MR. METGEsaid, he begged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, but he must say that his was not an unnatural conclusion to arrive at, when he

  1485
  found the right hon. and learned Gentleman putting a saving clause on the Paper. Was the Amendment merely moved for appearance's sake? That abuse had been committed under combination he did not deny; but, in the main, combinations were legitimate, Constitutional, and for the benefit of the country at large. The administration of this Bill would be placed in the hands of men who were opposed in every way—by education, by habits, and by training—to the people, whom they looked upon, in a certain sense, as servants. He did not mean to say there were not numbers of landlords in Ireland who were benevolent and just men; but the best of the Irish landlords regarded what they did for their tenants as acts of benign benevolence; and they felt it was the benign right of landlords to be absolutely exonerated from the necessity of doing such acts at all. He looked upon the men who would be the chief Executive under this Bill as having only one policy, and that was a policy to enable them to extract the greatest amount of rent from the Irish tenant in the shortest possible time. ["Question!"] He was speaking directly to the Question, for he was arguing that the landlord class were permitted to carry on their organization, whilst the Irish, tenants were not to be allowed to combine. It was said, "Oh, you may do anything that is not illegal;" but he and his hon. Friends knew that that argument was absolutely futile; it was altogether fallacious as regarded any good an Irish tenant farmer might gain by bringing his case before the Courts. For that reason the Irish Members should use every effort they could to secure the right of Constitutional organization to the Irish tenant farmers. Within the last few days an entirely new organization had sprung up in Ireland—namely, the organization of labourers. He recognized that as a very healthy sign; he always had a feeling that the labourers of Ireland were, perhaps, of any class, the least respected and the least cared for in Ireland; and, in the interest of order, the way to dissuade these men from crime was not by crushing them down below the surface, but by giving them power of combination, so as to direct their feelings into legitimate channels, by giving them power to use their combination to obtain the
  1486
  rights which were admittedly their due. He did not object to the combination of landlords any more than he objected to the combination of labourers. Both of such combinations might have very healthy and useful objects; but if the Government controlled the right of tenant farmers and labourers to combine, they ought also to control the right of the landlords to organize. If, on the other hand, the Government allowed the co-operation of landlords to go free, they ought to allow equal licence of combination to the poor, and needy, and labouring classes in Ireland, in order to enable them to obtain their fair measure of justice.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary left the matter exactly where it rested before he proposed it—namely, in doubt as to whether or not tenant farmers could combine to the same extent as artizans could combine under the Trades Unions Acts. The Irish Members did not contend that anything in the shape of intimidation or outrage should be practised by tenant farmers and labourers with impunity, whether they entered into combination or not; but they held that it might be construed by lawyers that the expression "trade union" would exclude labourers and farmers from the provisions of the Trades Unions Acts. It was not desired that the tenant farmers and labourers of Ireland should have license for outrage or intimidation, but simply that they should be allowed to combine for laudable and legal objects, that combinations with such objects should not be held to be illegal under the provisions of this Act. That was all the Irish Members asked; it was a thoroughly reasonable request, and he could not see on what grounds the Government could object to it. If it was what was called surplusage, it could do no harm. It seemed to him that if the Government wished the Land Act to be successful they should encourage combinations of tenant farmers for the purpose of deciding legal questions which might require to be exhaustively fought in the Superior Courts. On what ground could the Government object to encourage these combinations? Of course, if the tenant farmers did anything in the way of outrage by the fact of their being in combination, he would

  1487
  not allow combination; but, as a rule, combinations were extremely beneficial in a country.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Noes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Six Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared that the Noes had it.
  Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Ayes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Noes to stand up in their places, and no Member having stood up, he declared the Ayes had it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved the following Clause after Clause 26:—
  (Saving for Associations.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall render unlawful any political or social association for such objects, and acting by such means as, under this Act or otherwise, are not unlawful, nor shall membership of such an association be deemed to be an offence against this Act."
  This clause was, with certain modifications, the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He had desired to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Wexford as far as he could, and he hoped that his intentions would be appreciated by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge), and that in moving this new clause he would not incur that hon. Gentleman's intense indignation. As a rule, saving clauses were put in, not because they were absolutely necessary, but in order that no misapprehension should arise on the subject. He would be glad to put this clause in, because he had received letters from Friendly Societies and other bodies of that kind in Ireland, anxious to know whether anything in this Bill would interfere with their organization? He was happy to answer there was nothing in the Bill to interfere with an organization like that of a Friendly Society. It was just as well to make the matter clear that that was so, and, therefore, he moved this new clause, and hoped that, at all events, he might receive credit from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Metge).
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). It declares that—
  "Every person who, within six months after the passing of this Act, being a landlord, shall proceed against any tenant by ejectment for non-payment of rent, or by sale of such tenant's interest in his holding, under an execution for such rent, under circumstances which, in the opinion of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, acting under this Act, render such proceedings unjust, or by reason of excessive rent or otherwise, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  I have examined the Bill, and I think this is not material to the sections already passed or within the purview of the Bill, and therefore it cannot be put. The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum). It proposes that—
  "Section thirty-nine of the Act of the Session of the thirty-third year of the reign of Her Present Majesty, chapter nine, intituled 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870,' is hereby re-enacted and shall continue in force for the same period as this Act, and shall have effect as if it were contained in this Act, with the additional power and authority that the grand jury of the county in which such district may be situate shall from time to time present to be paid to the Lord Lieutenant every such certified sum of money in respect to which the Lord Lieutenant may have made an order, and which, in pursuance thereof, shall have become chargeable as aforesaid upon such district or limited portion thereof as determined by such grand jury, such money to be raised, and every such presentment made and levied, in like manner as if such sum were presented to the personal representative of a person murdered, or to a person maimed or injured under the said Act."
  This power has already been given to the Lord Lieutenant by Clause 16 of the Bill; the Amendment is in direct contravention of that, and therefore it cannot be put. I must now call upon Mr. Parnell.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he would take upon himself the duty of proposing the insertion of the following Clause:—
  (Treatment of persons convicted of treason or treason felony, &c.)
  "Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference shall be made between the treatment of persons convicted of treason or treason felony, and the treatment of persons who have been convicted of other crimes, during the period of

  1489
  their detention in prison, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference, there shall be in force, in every place in which such prisoners are confined, special rules regulating their confinement, in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the necessity of preserving order and good government in the place in which they are confined, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves: Be it therefore enacted, That the Lord Lieutenant shall make, and, when made, may from time to time repeal, alter, or add to, special rules for the treatment of such persons: Provided always, that the treatment and discipline of such persons prescribed by such rules shall not exceed in severity that prescribed for misdemeanants of the first division, within the meaning of section 67 of 'The Prisons Act, 1865.'"
  He thought this was a very important clause, and hoped to be able to show the Home Secretary that, with certain modifications, he might very fairly accept it. He would, not go into the great distinction that existed between political prisoners and other prisoners; but he would point out that the Prime Minister himself wrote one of his most eloquent works upon the treatment of Polerio and other political prisoners, and he thought it was admitted that in civilized countries a distinction between political prisoners and other prisoners did exist. He would meet at once the objection which, perhaps, the Home Secretary would raise to this clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would say—"We are not aiming in this Bill against bonâ fide political opponents, but we are aiming against murderers and others." If there were murderers and the like, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could proceed against them by two clauses of the Bill for their crime. He (Mr. Labouchere) only asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the position of those who were supposed to be guilty of treason or treason-felony, and who were not convicted of any other crime either under this or any Act. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on this matter. The Home Secretary in the last Parliament, when there were certain political prisoners, expressed his regret that he was not able to make concessions with regard to those who were punished for treason-felony, because he was not empowered by the law to do so. In 1871 the Devon Commission sat. That Commission reported in favour of the—
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDrose to Order. Notice of this clause had been given in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would like to know whether his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton was in Order in moving it, he not having given Notice of it?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he was not aware that it was necessary for an hon. Gentleman to give Notice of a new clause before he could move it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE,continuing, said, he was saying that the Devon Commission, in 1871, reported in favour of persons in prison for treason or treason-felony being treated exceptionally. Probably many hon. Gentlemen had read the evidence given by Mr. Davitt before the Penal Servitude Commissioners in 1879. It was shown that the treatment of educated men in prison was so monstrous, that Mr. Davitt was treated in so gross and scandalous a manner that the indignation of all who read that Report was aroused. When Mr. Davitt was first brought into prison he was stripped naked, and, in fact, his treatment was so gross that, when the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was calling attention to it some years ago, he had to ask that the Ladies' Gallery should be cleared. It was then shown that they had either to shut these prisoners up under the Prison Rules in solitary confinement, or they had to place them amongst the convicts. He (Mr. Labouchere) could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that a great many of those who had looked into this Bill were exceedingly anxious on this point. He was quite ready to make any reasonable alteration in this clause; for instance, he would suggest that the latter part of the clause should read in this way—
  "Be it therefore enacted, That the Lord Lieutenant may," instead of 'shall,' "make, and, when made, may from time to time repeal, alter, or add to, special rules for the treatment of such of these persons as he may think fit."
  He quite admitted there might be some persons charged with treason or treason-felony whom the Government might know had committed other crimes, and who ought not to be treated in a better way than any other convict. He would propose to leave out "Provided always," &c., so that prisoners would not neces-

  1491
  sarily be treated as first-class misdemeanants. The only effect of the alteration he proposed would be that, whereas without it, it was impossible for the Executive to make a distinction if they wished, it would leave it entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to make a distinction, if he chose, and to apply it, if not to all, certainly to any persons whom he might think ought not to be, from the circumstances of their case, treated absolutely in the same way as convicts.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Preamble of this clause proceeded on the notion that persons guilty of treason or treason-felony were, from the very nature of their offence, to be treated as leniently as possible, due regard only being had to their safe custody. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" but he (Sir William Harcourt) was stating his reason for altogether differing from that view of the case. In his opinion, treason or treason-felony was one of the gravest crimes that could be committed by any subject of the Queen. It was grave in this respect, that it not only was an offence on the part of the individual who committed it, but it led others into danger of their lives and liberties. Let him state an ordinary case of treason-felony. A man set to work to supply a misguided and ignorant people with arms for the purpose of inducing them to rise in rebellion, a rebellion that might lead to the loss of the lives of hundreds of people, and certainly to the great disturbance of the country. That was to be treated as little oppressively as possible. He knew no greater crime; murder itself was not a greater crime, because treason or treason-felony might lead to the loss of hundreds of lives, and might lead people to an armed rebellion; and, therefore, nothing more mischievous than the doctrine stated in the Preamble of this clause; nothing more destructive to the peace of Her Majesty's Dominions, whether in Ireland or elsewhere, nothing more pernicious than the doctrine contained in this Preamble, could it be possible to conceive. Under no circumstances could the Government meet such a clause as this, with such a Preamble,
  1492
  except with the most absolute reprobation. Well, so much for the Preamble of this clause—a clause which was meant, if it meant anything, to encourage rebellion, to justify it, to teach the Irish people that rebellion was a venial offence. He might almost say that this clause and its Preamble was an incitement to rebellion. He now came to the enacting part of the clause. To treat a man who had supplied arms for the purpose of rebellion in Ireland as a first-class misdemeanant was a proposition too strong for the common sense of his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere), and he had consequently abandoned the words, and he had only adopted the features of the clause of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Having abandoned the Preamble, and having, as he (Sir William Harcourt) hoped, abandoned a principal part of the enactment, the hon. Gentleman wished to adhere to the declaration that the Lord Lieutenant might make what rules he liked. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that was totally unnecessary. The Executive Government had complete control over the treatment of prisoners in prison, and might modify the treatment of any particular person in any manner they thought fit; therefore, it was totally unnecessary to say that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to deal with the case of a particular person as he thought fit. He was quite sure it was in the knowledge of the Members of the House that that power rested with the Secretary of State in England and was so exercised, and similar power rested with the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. What was absolutely not to be permitted was the holding out to the people of Ireland the notion that treason or treason-felony was a crime that was to be regarded with any special lenity or favour, and on behalf of the Government he must oppose this clause.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he had often had difficulty, during his political career, in quite making up his mind as to whether the present Home Secretary was a Whig or a Tory; but after the exposition of his principles they had heard to-night, he could not help coming to the conclusion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman belonged rather to the Tory ranks than to the Whigs, for how could a Whig, the child of rebellion and insurrection—
  COLONEL MAKINSrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in describing the Home Secretary as a child of rebellion and insurrection?
  MR. STOREYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might set his mind at rest; the Home Secretary quite understood that he (Mr. Storey) was dealing with the history of the Whig Party, and not with the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally. It was an unpopular thing to say; but treason or treason-felony might be, and very often was, a crime not only to be leniently treated, but to be honoured. There was sufficient in the past treatment of Ireland by that House and this country to have justified the Irish people, any time during the last century, and any time during the early part of this century, in taking up arms, and rebelling against England.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGwanted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in advocating rebellion?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The declaration of the hon. Gentleman referred to the last century; and, that being so, I cannot say he is out of Order.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he was going to add that of late years they had in that House altered their treatment of Ireland, and honest attempts had been made, and he freely admitted were being made, to govern Ireland upon a more reasonable principle. Parliament, however, was always too late and slow in these matters; and by its neglect, by putting off remedial measures, it gave good reason to the more active and more earnest-minded—if they would, to the more impassioned—of the Irish people to take swifter and more dangerous means of attaining their ends. It might be that there were men who had been driven into these dark paths who deserved not so much condemnation as pity, and in their case leniency ought to be exercised. There were people in England, and not a few of them, who were so convinced of the evil treatment of Ireland, not by the English, but by the privileged class of England, that they would take strong measures to bring about a better state of things. The hon. Member for Northampton had exercised discretion in modifying the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
  1494
  There might be people who, as the Home Secretary had very properly said, committed acts, and incited men in such, a way that if they could be got at they would be severely punished. On the other hand, there were degrees of treasonable conduct which might be met in a different spirit; there were men who had been seduced into a departure from the law by bad and cruel treatment of themselves or their families—treatment at the hands of friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There might be men suffering under a sense of wrong—
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member was speaking to the Question before the Committee? The Chairman had already ruled that to refer to what happened in the last century was not out of Order.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The allusions to the last century and the beginning of this century were to treason; anything of that kind with reference to the present time is out of Order. The allusions now are to the supposed improper conduct of individuals, and they are not out of Order.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he was endeavouring to say that if there were men smarting under a sense of wrong—
  MR. PLUNKETrose to Order, and said, the hon. Member was making a very strong attack upon those who were connected with landed property in Ireland, and if that was persisted in, it might lead to a debate; but if the hon. Member was not referring to the present time, he wished to know from the Deputy Chairman what it had to do with the subject-matter before the Committee?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I understood the argument of the hon. Member to be that certain persons were incited in such a way that might lead to treason, or treason-felony, through resentment at the conduct of certain persons in Ireland; that is not out of Order.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he would relieve the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite by condensing his view into a single sentence—namely, that although there might be, and were, men who had been guilty of treasonable acts, who deserved severe punishment, yet, on the other hand, there were men smarting under a conviction of misery produced by an

  1495
  evil system in Ireland, and who were led by their strong feeling of resentment into technical offences against the law. As to these men, the hon. Member for Northampton was right in pressing on the Government that their treatment should be more lenient than that of the other class of cases. What did treason amount to after all? If he failed in a movement, he was a traitor; if he succeeded, those opposed to him were the traitors. The men who succeeded were the patriots; the men who failed were the traitors.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood that the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that treason was merely a matter of who happened to be in power, or who were not in power.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I understand the hon. Member to enter into a different argument; and I am sure the hon. Member for Hertford understands the epigram.
  MR. STOREYsaid, it was an old and musty epigram, but expressed a truth. In rough-and-ready language he had expressed what all the great Whigs of the past believed in; and if the Whigs of to-day had forgotten the lessons of their forefathers, there were Radicals who were ready to take those lessons to heart, and, when occasion arose, to prove that they believed in them.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, so far as he was concerned, he would not enter into the contest to which the hon. Member had challenged him, because he did not desire to give further notoriety to an argument which seemed to be brought forward as a direct incitement to treason and treason-felony, and would go far to neutralize the measure over which the House had spent so much time.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, treason-felony was on quite a different footing from ordinary crimes. There were two countries by which he thought England might take example.
  MR. JONES PARRYrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. and gallant Member was confining himself to the clause, which did not appear to him to raise the question of treason and treason-felony, but referred to the treatment of prisoners in gaols in Ireland?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): It is impossible for me at present to say what the observations are.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, there were two countries by which England might take example in this matter—one smaller in population than Ireland, and one larger—namely, Switzerland and the United States of America. Twenty years ago Switzerland had a revolution; but men were not imprisoned. What did America do when it experienced the most formidable revolution in the history of the world? Only one single man was punished, and he believed those who punished him were sorry for having done so. Those were very fair instances of how other countries looked upon the crime of treason. We might look at our own case and argue whether we would give up refugees who had committed treason. We gave up refugees for murder and forgery, but not for treason; and, therefore, he thought, in spite of the argument of the Home Secretary, that treason ought to be looked at as an offence different, if not in degree, at least in class, from other offences. The object of this Amendment was not to make punishment for treason less severe, but loss degrading than for other offences, and the argument of those who maintained that that Amendment should be introduced was that if this punishment was made degrading, too much sympathy would be created with the offender, because, after all, people would be sure to draw a distinction between political and other offences. There was another reason why this distinction should be drawn—to commit a political offence it was absolutely necessary for a great number of people to be persuaded of the desirability of a particular object. The fact of persuading a large number of people created a great difference as to this offence, and it was only reasonable that, although treason might have to be punished, it should not be made degrading. Sympathy would be excited for very dangerous men, and in that way the Government would be setting themselves against the sympathies of the whole of the English-speaking people in Australia, America, and elsewhere. If men were subjected to punishments such as the English-speaking countries did not approve of, there would always be a strong feeling stirred up against England. They had Ireland, Canada, the Bermudas, the West Indies, and other countries, and they must take all this into consideration, for he believed

  1497
  nothing would injure the good feeling of the English-speaking race in the whole world more than the infliction of degrading punishments for an act of treason. If the Government set up, as the Home Secretary seemed to wish, a law of their own, and say the English Institutions were so perfect that rebellion or treason against it was worse than treason in any other country, they would seriously weaken those Institutions. The attitude of the Government upon this matter was one which other communities had not adopted, unless it was Venice. If prisoners were treated in this matter generally, sympathy would be aroused on their behalf, and the conduct of the Government would be condemned by English-speaking people throughout the world as un-English.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he was afraid the discussion was wandering away from the point. He was not going to discuss whether the Home Secretary was a Whig or a Tory. He had great confidence in the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and although he was very sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had declared himself a Whig, he should not make the same speech as the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) made, because he might come under the provisions of this Act before it was passed. The subject before the House was the treatment of political prisoners, and in order to judge of the manner in which those prisoners might be treated, it was only necessary to look back to 1871, when a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the question. He did not propose to read the evidence given before that Commission; but anyone looking over it must be struck by the remarkable severity and hardship and brutality to which men imprisoned for treason or treason-felony were subjected. He need not enter into the history of cruelty and hardships to which Mr. Davitt was subjected.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether the hon. Member was referring to last year?
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he was not referring to Davitt's treatment under the present Home Secretary. He had treated Mr. Davitt very well, and had let him out of prison. He was speaking of his treatment when he was imprisoned by the Conservative Govern-
  1498
  ment. That treatment was a disgrace to a civilized country. When Davitt was a young man he lost his arm; but when he was imprisoned he was compelled to draw a cart loaded with stones by means of ropes passed round his body. He complained that this hurt him; but his complaint was not listened to, and he was obliged to do this work, until the doctor interfered, and said if he continued it mortification would set in. He defied denial to that statement, and he asserted that such treatment was a disgrace to a civilized country. All that was now asked was that the Lord Lieutenant might modify the present rules as he thought proper and wise. Surely there could be no objection to giving the Lord Lieutenant that discretion. Under the present provision an immense power was given to the Lord Lieutenant, and in regard to the treatment of prisoners, if the Government had the confidence they pretended to have in the Lord Lieutenant, they could give him the same power of discretion in the case of political prisoners. Punishment was one thing, guilt was another; and the Government could not do a more injurious thing in carrying out this measure than refusing to give the Lord Lieutenant this discretion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had listened to what he considered very dangerous doctrines. The hon. Member for Waterford asked that discretion should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant, which would render the amount of punishment uncertain. What was treason? It was an offence against the whole community. The United States afforded an example of the way in which the penalty for treason had been increased in severity. He confessed that that went far beyond his notions of justice and propriety, by the prolonged delay of the execution of the murderer of the President. It was otherwise in this country. Here the law against treason had been rendered uncertain and remote. The utterance of treason was now scarcely considered criminal, and this seemed to have led hon. Members to consider treason a venial offence. No matter what the State might be, or what the form of Government against which treason was committed, there was no law book of any value which did not record this as an offence of the highest kind, because it was an offence against

  1499
  the whole community. There had been revolutions, and revolutionists must stand the test of their action being justifiable, by being willing to face the severity of the law, which they thought it necessary to violate. If a revolutionist did that, he did it with his eyes open; but what he hoped would never be done in this country was to render the penalty for treason more uncertain, because that would be a direct incitement to rebellion. In America, beneath the written law lay Lynch law, the severest of laws—the most unmeasured, the most severe of all laws, if law it could be called. Anxious as he was for the peace of Ireland and England, he could not hear doctrines tending to render the penalty for treason uncertain broached without remonstrance.
  MR. METGEsaid, he thought the ideas expressed in this discussion were hazy in the extreme. So far as his opinions went, it struck him as a curious argument to draw to say that the crime of treason was morally more heinous than that of murder. Murder was in almost every case accompanied by aggravated incidents which were abhorrent to the best and highest feelings of men, and shocked everyone who pretended to have the faintest atom of human feeling. On the other hand, treason was not only far from being heinous, but in itself was sometimes most ennobling. On this subject he would simply remind the Committee of the reception General Garibaldi met with in London—
  MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hon. Member's words be taken down.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must ask the hon. Member to repeat his words.
  MR. HICKS: He said the act was ennobling—treason was ennobling.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Does the hon. Member admit having used the words?
  MR. METGE: No; certainly not. He could not say positively what words he used, but he knew the idea he wanted to convey. He could positively say, however, on the word of a gentleman, that he never intended to use the words attributed to him, and he would ask any hon. Member to rise in his place and repeat the exact expressions he had made use of. What he wished to convey was that the act of treason-felony was—well, he could not explain himself. [Laughter.]
  1500
  Yes, it was true he could not at the moment explain himself; but there was one thing he meant to do, and that was not to sit down until he had explained himself. He was not afraid of that House or any other House—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I should like the hon. Member to proceed with his observations.
  MR. METGEsaid, he wished to proceed—he wished to got a chance of proceeding. He was charged with using words which he absolutely denied, and he was speaking to a House supposed to be composed of gentlemen. He had never said that the crime of treason-felony was ennobling; but he had said that it was distinguished from the crime of murder. He said the feeling which incited persons to commit acts of treason-felony was in itself—
  LORD ALGERNON PERCY: As the hon. Member has asked some hon. Member to rise in his place and say exactly what were the words he used, I beg to state that the words were "treason-felony is ennobling."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The noble Lord is irregular in interrupting the debate.
  MR. METGEsaid, that, when interrupted, he was saying that, seeing the strong feeling that existed on this matter, it was curious that such a House should have received Garibaldi, the great apostle of treason, with acclamation. Garibaldi received a perfect ovation in London—and from hon. Gentlemen, some of whom were sitting on the Treasury Bench. Members of Her Majesty's Government were amongst those who did honour to the man who opposed his King—nay, who dethroned his King—the man who was successful in one of the most determined revolutions that had marked the history of the past quarter of a century. In a country which had bestowed such praise upon Garibaldi, he must say it seemed to him to be unseemly that they were unable to imagine that a man might be of noble character and possess the strongest feelings of humanity, and at the same time have committed the offence of treason-felony. But, to go from this, if the Home Secretary thought the early part of the clause would condone the offence of treason in any way, it would be a very easy thing to modify it. To say, however, that persons who were guilty of the offence of treason in any

  1501
  degree should be subjected to the same punishment as those unfortunate men whose cases had been brought before the House was to put forward a proposition which he could not think any hon. Member would get up and support. He could understand a man being shot, hanged, or made away with in some other fashion for the offence of treason; but he could not understand torturing him for it. The people who had been convicted under the Treason Felony Acts in Ireland were strong cases in point. He remembered one case himself—that of Sergeant McCarthy. This poor fellow, who was in a very delicate state of health, was confined in a cell that measured about six feet square, to which light and air was communicated solely through a four-inch loophole in the wall. The man suffered from congestion, of the lungs, and his breathing was terribly affected; and, in evidence before a Committee of the House, he had positively asserted that it was his constant habit, day after day, to cling on to the iron bars of this miserable loophole, drag himself up, in spite of his emaciated condition, and get a few gasps of fresh air. The man only lived to regain his freedom—he did not survive his release and return to his native country more than two or three days. What was the result of all this? Why, that the man was made a martyr of. Acts such as these tended to make martyrs of men who would otherwise have no claim to the consideration of the people of Ireland. It should be in the power of the Executive to use their discretion as to the punishment which should be inflicted. The Amendment would give the Executive this discretion, leaving it to them to say what punishment should be awarded and how it should be modified. If the Amendment were adopted, he was sure it would not defeat the ends of justice. It would lessen that bitterness of feeling which was given rise to when well-educated and delicately-nurtured men were roughly handled in miserable dungeons and forced to associate with felons of the lowest character. It was martyrdom of this kind which seemed to him to have led to the strongest condemnation of the British Government in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would suggest that the time had come when they should jut an end to this discussion, for they
  1502
  were either sinking to the level of a debating society, or treading on very dangerous ground. The only suggestion that could be offered in support of this new clause was that, in the opinion of some Members of the House, men might be traitors, and yet commit only a venial offence. Why were they to select treason as a crime to be held out as, in the opinion of the House, exceptional on account of its venial character? The suggestion was a dangerous one, and he (the Attorney General) maintained that to continue the discussion in this spirit must of necessity have a most damaging tendency. It had been said by an hon. Member that Members of the Whig Party had taken part in successful and unsuccessful treason. Well, if they had taken part in unsuccessful treason they were convicted traitors; but they had had the courage of their opinions. They had never asked to be treated as first-class misdemeanants. They had stood the consequences of their acts, and he would ask hon. Members who were in sympathy with treason themselves to contemplate those consequences.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in imputing to any hon. Member of that House sympathy with treason.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I did not understand the hon. and learned Member to do that.
  MR. R. POWER: Those were the words he used.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Attorney General, with well-simulated indignation, which he had learned elsewhere than in that House for temporary purposes, had asked why should they select treason as a crime to be treated exceptionally? He (Mr. Callan) would reply by asking—why did the Government treat persons in this country guilty of treason against Foreign Sovereigns and Foreign Governments different to the manner in which they treated other foreign offenders? The Attorney General, at this very moment, had offences of this kind before him. Under Extradition Treaties the hon. and learned Member would proceed against persons who had committed murder, forgery, or robbery in France, Germany, Russia, or any other foreign country—he would proceed against these people and hand

  1503
  them over to the authorities of their own countries. The hon. and learned Member had done that repeatedly during the present year; but had he or the Government ever presumed to hand over to any Foreign Power any person accused of treason or treason-felony? Certainly not. Then, when they themselves made so broad a distinction between treason or treason-felony, and other crimes, why did they turn round, and, affecting an air of indignation, say—"Why do you want to make this exception?" Who had they made the Governor of one of their Colonies?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to ask who, by the advice of the Government, had been made a Knight and a Governor of one of their Colonies? Why, Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who had been convicted of treason-felony in Ireland. Had they not had in their House John Martin, and had they not spoken of him as a friend, and yet that person had been convicted of treason-felony? John Martin had expiated his sentence, and he (Mr. Callan) had heard the present Prime Minister appeal to him as one of the purest spirits he knew. Who, he (Mr. Callan) would ask, was at the present time ingratiated with the Government—who but one Michael Davitt had accused of having been the first to lead him into treason.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary how he had treated Michael Davitt when he was in prison at Portland? He had not treated him as a common felon—he had not asked him to associate with the ordinary rank and file of the convicts in Portland Prison, he had not asked him to do menial work, but had treated him as a special political prisoner; and all the new clause asked was that the Lord Lieutenant should have power to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had already done in that particular case. Reference had been made to John Martin, and he would ask whether anyone would for a moment contend that such a person should be treated as a common felon? Such a proceeding could not be thought of. As a matter of fact, the Government were making it appear that they
  1504
  were much more severe than they intended to be. They never intended to treat men of this stamp as they sought to make it appear that they wished to treat them. How did the United States treat Jefferson Davis? They did not treat him as a common felon. They put him on his trial, kept him in confinement for a short time, and then gave him a free pardon. Her Majesty's Government should do as other Governments would do in regard to political prisoners, and as, in practice, they did themselves in regard to political offenders belonging to Foreign States.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had involved them in some irrelevance and heat, and some things had been said which it would have been better not to have introduced into the debate. When they came calmly to consider the question before them they would see that it reduced itself into a very small compass. It was this, whether the Government would consent that the treatment of political prisoners in gaol should be different to that of ordinary prisoners. That was the sole question raised under the clause, and the preliminary matters, involving the apple of discord, which had been occupying the attention of hon. Members might now very well be allowed to drop. They knew that some hon. Members who had the good fortune to occupy seats on the Treasury Bench had been first and foremost in asserting that which, years ago, would have been high treason in this country, and first and foremost in asserting Italian nationality. What Irish Members wanted was Irish nationality; let the Members of the Government to whom he referred be logical in their conclusions. Instead of Italian nationality let them advocate nationality in Ireland. What he wanted to enforce on the Committee was, that whereas Englishmen, of all others, had been pre-eminent in asserting that no punishment of a degrading character should be imposed upon those suspected of favouring Italian nationality, they should deal in the same manner with persons suspected of favouring Irish nationality. He trusted, therefore, he should have the support of the Government when he proposed to amend the clause by omitting all the words from "Whereas" to—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The Question now before the Committee is that the clause be read a second time. I think it also right to remind the Committee that it is open to the Chairman to ask an hon. Gentleman to discontinue his speech on account of needless repetition.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Noes had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Eleven Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that, in the inevitable absence of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he would move the clause standing in that hon. Member's name. It was in these words—
  (Repeal of "Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881.")
  "From and after the passing of this Act, the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
  As, no doubt, the Government were convinced that the Bill before the Committee would be effectual in putting down crime in Ireland, there could be no object in wishing to keep on the Statute Book the unfortunate Coercion Act which had proved so ineffective.
  New Clause—
  (Repeal of "Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881.")
  "From and after the passing of this Act, the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government had considered this matter very carefully, and their view was that it would not be safe and proper that the Act entitled "Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881," should be allowed to lapse before the expiration of the period for which it was passed.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)stated he thought the Noes
  1506
  had it, and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Ten Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
  MR. METGEsaid, he wished to move the clause which stood in his name with reference to the grant of outdoor relief to the families of prisoners. The clause would not in any way affect the treatment of prisoners, nor would it effect an alteration in the law, which would be exceptional as regarded Ireland. As the law stood at the present moment in England, it was possible to grant outdoor relief in all cases where the head of the family was in gaol or other place of confinement; but this was not the case in Ireland. In that country no person was qualified to receive the benefits of the Poor Law unless incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity. Therefore, as the law at present stood, the families of persons who came under the operation of this Act would be excluded from the advantage of receiving relief, supposing they were rendered destitute by being deprived of their bread-winners. Apart from the general argument, he would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had described this measure—which, everyone must allow was severe—as the most severe that had ever been entered on the Statute Book, and which might well be spoken of as a disgrace to England. This Bill, to a great extent, dealt with political offences, and, so far as such offences were concerned, he thought it was specially unjust that, because the head of a family allowed himself to be entrapped or seduced into criminal ways, his wife and children should be made sufferers. A man might commit an offence which his wife and children might do all in their power to prevent him committing. For these reasons the Government ought to accede to this proposal; the acceptance of the clause would be a mere act of justice and humanity to those who were in no way implicated in crime.
  New Clause—
  (Grant of Outdoor Relief.)
  "The enactments contained in the third section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880,' as amended by the ninth section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1880,' shall, so far as relates to the families of

  1507
  persons arrested or imprisoned under this Act, continue in force during the continuance of this Act."—(Mr. Metge.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Government were unable to accept this clause. The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, provided that Guardians of the Poor might give outdoor relief to those persons who were unable to support themselves. It would not be proper to provide relief for persons who committed offences under this Act.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, this was a very exceptional Act, and it would be well that it should contain some such clause as was now proposed. He had understood that the Attorney General for England had given a promise that this question should be dealt with. On Report the Government ought certainly to agree to some clause of this kind. There would be no loss to the ratepayers; but, on the other hand, the clause would prove an enormous advantage to the families of the men convicted of crime.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTproposed to add, as a new paragragh to the 1st Schedule—
  "An appellant shall be entitled, on application, to have a copy of the shorthand writer's notes, free of charge."
  The insertion of such words would fulfil a pledge he gave in the course of the Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved the following Schedule, which he explained was a merely consequential Amendment on the Special Jury Clause, which had been already discussed:—
  Second Schedule.
  [Note.—Special jurors for the trial of any case triable in any of the places specified in either column of this schedule, are to be taken indifferently by ballot from the panel for that place and the panel for the place named opposite thereto in the other column of the schedule.]
  Column 1.

  County of Antrim.

  County of Cork.

  County of Dublin.

  County of Galway.

  County of Kilkenny.

  County of Limerick.

  County of Waterford.

  Column 2.

  County of the Town of Carrickfergus.

  County of the City of Cork.

  County of the City of Dublin.

  County of the Town of Galway.

  County of the City of Kilkenny.

  County of the City of Limerick.

  County of the City of Waterford.

  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Home Secretary, If it would not be well to take the Report and third reading of the Bill on Thursday or Friday rather than have a Saturday Sitting? In the interest of Ireland it was right the Bill should be passed as speedily as possible.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not give an assurance. He hoped the Report would be considered on Thursday.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 90.]
(Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Burt, Mr. Brand, Mr. Bryce.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, there were many Amendments to which he should be happy to agree. If they could have the Bill reprinted with all the Amendments embodied it would save the time of the House.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, the suggestion was a good one, and he hoped the Committee would agree to it.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTunderstood the Committee was to be taken, pro formâ, to-night?
MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped sufficient time would be given to consider the Bill properly. When would the Bill, as amended, be considered?
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he proposed to put down the Bill for that day week.
Bill reported,; to be printed, as amended [Bill 227]; re-committed for Tuesday next.

BOMBAY CIVIL FUND BILL.
Resolution [July 3] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]

BEER ADULTERATION BILL— [BILL 82.]
(Colonel Barne, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Storer.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Wilton, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4)* (171); Parliamentary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment (111), negatived; Highway Rates and Expenditure* (173).
Committee—Merchant Shipping (Colonial Inquiries)* (164).
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders* (125).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (147), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
Moved, That the order made on the 24th of March last "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 20th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)

(NO. 111.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, it will be in the recollection of the House that at an early period of the Session—now three months ago—the attention of your Lordships was called to the question of Parliamentary Oaths by no less an authority than the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). Although the proposal then made by the noble Earl did not receive the sanction of the House, and although, indeed, I might safely say that after debate it did not commend itself to the judgment of any portion of the House, yet I am sure that it was not felt that my noble Friend had opened the subject unduly, or had proposed to interfere with a state of the law which was highly satisfactory. My noble Friend, whose earnestness and sincerity of character are well known, was evidently moved by deep concern for the grave scandals which have arisen under the present law, and for the still graver scandals which are likely to arise in the future. I am not surprised at the terms of the Motion in opposition to this Bill which is about to be moved by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon). I perfectly understand the attitude of mind in regard to this subject which is represented by the Amendment of my noble Friend. How should I not understand it when, up to a late period, it had been the attitude of my own mind with respect to it? Of course, in the year 1880, like others, and especially the Members of the Government, I knew the discussions which arose out of the existing state of the Parliamentary Oaths Act; and, like others, I foresaw the inevitable result. Looking at the condition of our society, looking at the condition of the Christian world with regard to these questions of Atheism and of Deism, and of speculative opinions on such subjects—I foresaw the inevitable result of a contest on this subject; but I am bound to say that so distasteful to my mind was the conclusion which I saw to be inevitable, that I was glad to

1355
take refuge, as my noble Friend opposite wishes this House to take refuge, in procrastination and delay. When conclusions are presented to us which, we deeply dislike, it is natural to take refuge in delay; and I am bound to confess that I would willingly fall back upon the belief that the Parliamentary Oaths Act was not a question likely at present to be raised in the House of Lords, and I was very glad to leave it to those Members of the Government who are Members of that House in which the question was raised. But, my Lords, subsequent events, and, I am bound to add, the speeches made in this House upon the Bill of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, have compelled me to give fresh attention to the subject; and I am now bound to the deep conviction that nothing more injurious than the present state of the law could exist to the character and reputation of public men and the dignity of Parliament, and, above all, to the interests of morality and religion. My Lords, this is the conclusion which I am here to-night to support in the hearing of this House, and, through this House, in the hearing of the people of England. I wish to direct the attention of the House, first, to the question, What is the law? and, secondly, to the question, What is the application of that law to the existing state of facts before us? During the time which has elapsed since I gave this Notice, I have been overwhelmed with letters from all sorts of persons; but I have observed this with regard to them, that in almost every case the writer seemed to be very imperfectly informed, or totally uninformed, as to the state of the present law, and as to its bearing upon the facts of our Parliamentary experience. Let me, in the first place, direct the attention of the House to the state of the existing law. The Parliamentary Oath, as it now stands, is regulated principally by the Act of 1866, which establishes the Oath of Allegiance, which is familiar to your Lordships. After providing for that Oath, the Act of 1866, in the 4th clause, says—
"Every person of the persuasion of the people called Quakers, and every other person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead of taking the Oath, may make a solemn affirmation or declaration."
1356
In the year 1869 another Act was passed, not with reference directly to the Parliamentary Oaths, but in regard to evidence given before Courts of Justice; and the terms of that Act are these—and it is very important that the Hours should attend to the words—it provides in the Preamble that in Courts of Justice the object is the discovery of the truth—
"Whereas the discovery of the truth has been signally promoted by the removal of restrictions upon the admissibility of witnesses;"
and it provides that—
"If any person called to give evidence in any Court of Justice, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, shall object to take the Oath, or shall be objected to as incompetent to take the Oath, such person shall, if the presiding Judge is satisfied that the taking of the Oath would have no binding effect on his conscience, make the following declaration."
Now, my Lords, this was the state of the law when these circumstances arose which called the attention of Parliament to the subject. Several friends of mine, with reference to the Notice I have given, have warned me that I was undertaking a very difficult task; because, although they agreed with me in the abstract proposal I was about to make, they thought I should dissociate the abstract merits of the Oath from those circumstances and personal cases which have raised so much scandal in the land. My Lords, I know too well the nature of the Assembly which I have the honour to address to suppose that I should gain anything by an artificial statement of the question; and besides, instead of those circumstances militating against the argument which I have now the honour to address to this House, in my opinion there could be nothing so conclusive as showing the evil of the present Oath as applicable to the existing condition of matters. Therefore, the House must allow me to go in some detail into the narrative of the circumstances. In doing so, I shall refer merely to what appears in the Journals of the House of Parliament which are accessible to us, and will say nothing of the words spoken in that Assembly. On the 3rd of May, 1880, one of the Members for Northampton came to the Table of the House of Commons and laid upon the Table the following written demand:—
"I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm as

1357
'a person for the time being by Law permitted to make a solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath.'"
Now, when laying that Paper on the Table of the House, he was asked by the Clerk upon what Statute, or in virtue of what law, he made that claim? His reply was, that he made it by virtue of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870, the terms of which I have just read to the House. Thereupon the Member for Northampton was informed by the Speaker that, it being a matter of grave doubt whether his claim could be admitted, he would be permitted to address the House of Commons in support of it; whereupon the Member for Northampton used these words—
"I have repeatedly for nine years past affirmed in the highest Courts of Jurisdiction in this Realm."
Your Lordships will now observe the effect of these formal declarations of the Member for Northampton. It put the House of Commons in formal and official possession of the fact that the Member for Northampton was an Atheist, upon whose conscience an Oath had no binding effect. He pleaded his right to affirm under the Evidence Amendment Act, and that Act allows a man to take the Affirmation instead of the Oath if the Judge presiding in Court shall be of opinion that an Oath has no binding effect upon him. The result, therefore, of these declarations of Mr. Bradlaugh was clearly to place the House of Commons in possession of the fact that he was an individual upon whom an Oath in itself had no binding effect. Therefore, the House of Commons appointed a Committee to consider the claim made by Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm in the House of Commons under the Evidence Amendment Act. That Committee reported in the following terms:—
"That, in the opinion of the Committee, persons entitled under the provisions of the Evidence Amendment Act (1869–70) to make a solemn declaration or affirmation instead of an oath in Courts of Justice, cannot he permitted to make a Declaration or Affirmation in place of an Oath in the House of Commons."
The Committee came to that finding by a majority of 2, but still by a majority, that Mr. Bradlaugh had no right under that particular Statute—that he was not competent as one of the persons who under that Statute had the privilege of substituting an Affirmation for an Oath.
1358
Now, my Lords, the next step was that the Member for Northampton, finding that he was precluded from affirming, made an endeavour to take the Oath. That being objected to, a second Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to consider whether Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled, after the Declaration he had made at the Table of the House, to swear as an ordinary Member. That Committee reported as follows:—
"Your Committee are of opinion that under the circumstances (that, of course, refers to the Declaration which had been made by Mr. Bradlaugh), the taking of an Oath by Sir. Bradlaugh would not be the taking of an Oath within the meaning of the Statute, and, therefore, the House can, and in the opinion of the Committee ought, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from, going through this form."
But they recommended that, in order to test the legal question, the Member for Northampton should be allowed to affirm, subject to the penalty which anyone might sue for in a Court of Justice. The House did not at first adopt the recommendation of the Committee. On the contrary, they came to the resolution on the 23rd of June that they would not allow the Member for Northampton either to swear or to affirm. But on the 1st of July, 1880, I believe under the influence of the Government, the House of Commons came to a contrary Resolution. That Resolution was as follows:—
"That every person returned as a Member of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time being by Law permitted to make a solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath, shall henceforth be permitted, without question, to make and subscribe a solemn Affirmation subject to any liability by Statute;"
and this Resolution was not only passed by the House of Commons, but it was subsequently passed and made a Standing Order of the House. Your Lordships will thus see that, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the law of the House of Commons is that in future any Member may come to the Table and ask to be allowed to affirm without any question being put to him, either by the Clerk or by the Speaker, subject to any penalty by Statute. I do not think now what may be the final effect of this Resolution; but it appears to me it is a Resolution in virtue of which the House of Commons has absolutely disclaimed, as a House, the duty of maintaining the present law, which

1359
refuses Mr. Bradlaugh, and such as Mr. Bradlaugh, the right to affirm. In virtue of that Resolution, Mr. Bradlaugh came forward to take the Affirmation. He was allowed to take the Affirmation without question, and in virtue of that he sat and voted for five months in the House of Commons. The legal question was then raised by a private person. It was brought before a regular tribunal in the form of a suit. The next step was the decision of the Court—namely, the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Justice Mathew, who delivered the decision, held that the Evidence Amendment Act applied only to the class of persons who were allowed to make an Affirmation instead of an Oath, and that the Parliamentary Oath was not within the purview of that Act. The question was brought before the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the decision of the Queen's Bench Division. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by three eminent Judges who presided over it. Your Lordships have now the honour of having as a Member of your House the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), who first delivered judgment, and whom I believe I have the honour of addressing to-night. The noble and learned Lord said he thought it was perfectly plain that the defendant was not entitled to affirm, or to declare, by virtue of the Act, for the further amendment of the Law of Evidence. The same decision was given by Lords Justices Baggallay and Lush. Though the decision of these two Courts was quite unanimous, an opposite opinion was maintained in the Committee of the House of Commons, which included both the Law Officers of the Crown, two eminent Queen's Counsel, and, I believe, another eminent lawyer. In the Courts of Law, the Judges had not the least doubt about the question. We are entering upon a period of political agitation and speculation, in which these rights and obligations of men are subjected to the closest scrutiny from many different points of view; and I confess I am not a little alarmed by the arguments which have been addressed by many eminent lawyers in regard to some of these matters. I gather from the fact that these eminent lawyers have given their opinion upon this question, differing so materially from those of the Judges, that we cannot safely trust this
1360
question to the decision of any body or any legal authority, except the trained and responsible interpreters of the law. I must say I envy the position of the noble and learned Lords who, on that Bench, have sometimes to deal with arguments which have been clearly governed by circumstances of political convenience or popular feeling. I now ask your Lordships to look to the effect of the decision which I have brought under the consideration of the House. It is now settled that under the existing law no person can come to the Table of either House of Parliament and claim the right to substitute an Affirmation for an Oath, because there are certain Atheists to whom the privilege has been given of making an Affirmation instead of taking an Oath in Courts of Justice. The contest now entirely turns on the question whether these Atheists can or cannot be allowed to swear? It is perfectly true that the Committee of the House of Commons decided that an Atheist, who had declared himself so at the Table of the House, was not entitled to swear. But, remember, that the decision had reference solely to the fact that he had made that declaration in that Parliament, and at the Table of the House, confessing that he had claimed the right to affirm as an Atheist in a Court of Justice. Remember that the Committee distinctly disavowed any right on the part of the House to cross-question any man in regard to his religious belief. This is a most important matter, and I beg the attention of the House to it. The Committee, when they found a verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh's right to swear, said that their decision did not imply that the House of Commons possessed any power to interrogate any Member desiring to take the Oath of Allegiance upon any subject connected with his religious belief, or upon the question whether the Oath would bind his conscience. The decision of the House of Commons, refusing Mr. Bradlaugh the right to swear, was founded, and founded alone, upon the fact that he had been misinformed as to the legal effect of the Evidence Amendment Act, and, under the influence of that mistake, he had unadvisedly confessed that he was an Atheist, and that the Oath was not binding upon him. The result is, that for the future—and I beg your Lordships to look to this—there will be

1361
no impediment whatever in the way of Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Atheist, to take the Oath at the Table of the House. The House of Commons has repudiated any right to interrogate any man as to his religious belief; and I am sure your Lordships will feel and see, if you choose to pursue the question, that it would be impossible to admit that right, because no man knows where it would stop, or how far such an interrogation might go. We have, therefore, this fact clearly before us—that the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh, in respect to taking the Oath, is a purely accidental exclusion. There is some doubt as to whether it applies even in his case, after he has been re-elected, because he returns a new man; and it is possible that, in the interval of time, he may become convinced of the reality of God, and might be willing to take the Oath under the belief in a God; but the House of Commons has ruled against that view of the question. There is no doubt whatever of this—that in a new Parliament, or a new constituency, where an Atheist may be elected, he would have nothing more to do than to take warning of the accidents and the calamity in which Mr. Bradlaugh fell, in making an illegal claim, and then he would be perfectly free and open to become a Member of the House of Commons. I will not stop to inquire whether those are right or wrong who have expressed such great blame on Mr. Bradlaugh for the course which he has chosen to take in offering to take an Oath in the sanctity of which he did not believe. It would be a waste of the time of this House. I know of no standard by which to judge of the immorality of a man who has persuaded himself to say in his heart that "there is no God." I do not deny that he may have a standard of his own. He may have that standard founded on the utilitarian theory of morals, which, as a matter of speculation, at any rate, has recommended itself to many powerful minds. He may have a standard derived from those traditional feelings of virtue and of honour which I believe come to us mainly from the Christian faith, and which may dwell in many minds after that faith has been abandoned, just as the light at this time of the year lingers after the sun has set. But these are questions into which it is no use to enter. But this I am bound to say in
1362
reference to the conduct of such a man—that if he proclaims beforehand and out of the House, although not in it, that he takes the Oath as a mere form, he does something at least to set himself right with the honour and conscience of mankind. There are others, whom I confess I am surprised at, who say they are indifferent to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh was willing to take the Oath, although not believing in the existence of a God. I believe in the language which has been held on this subject by a man who, I believe, as much as any other, represents, I am happy to say, the feelings and consciences of the working classes of this country, many of whom stray loose from Christianity. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed some weeks ago a letter from Mr. Holyoake in one of our weekly journals, in which he speaks of the indifference with which many public men seem to regard the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh was willing to come to the Table of the House of Commons and take this Oath, although he believed that the words "So help me God" were an empty form. Mr. Holyoake says Petitions are sent from many towns—I wonder whether any Petitions presented against my Bill come from the same towns which have presented Petitions to which Mr. Holyoake refers. Petitions are sent from many towns praying that a Member may take the Oath who does not believe in its terms; and a Nonconformist minister—I omit his name, because I do not wish to introduce personalities in this discussion—has entreated the House of Commons to assent to it, and several other ministers have taken part in demanding that this shall be done. Now, what does Mr. Holyoake say?—
"The Jesuits have never openly maintained a doctrine more intrinsically immoral than this. The one principle by which Christianity has commanded the respect even of dissentients has been its profession that truth is higher than any consequence."
And he went on to say—
"The legal doctrine of Parliament is, that every Member has a right to take the Oath who is willing to take it; but that right assumes at the same time that he who takes it believes in its terms."
I entirely agree with Mr. Holyoake, and I point to the fact which he points to—that Nonconformist congregations with-

1363
out number, and towns in considerable number, have sent Petitions to Parliament asking that Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take the Oath, without uttering or feeling any compunction whatever as to the scandalous immorality of the transaction. Let us look at the demoralizing effect of the present state of the law. Let me go from Mr. Holyoake to a much more distinguished man—so distinguished a man, I think I may say so great a man, as Mr. John Stuart Mill. I am not one of Mr. John Stuart Mill's disciples. I dissent from many of his views, and I think there is much mischief in many of his writings; but no man can have studied those writings, no man can have known him personally, as I had the honour to do, without feeling that Mr. John Stuart Mill was a very high-minded man, and a very pure-minded man, and what you find him saying is a significant indication of what an honourable man will be brought to think and say in respect to taking the Oath under certain circumstances. Mr. John Stuart Mill, in answer to a question which was put to him by Mr. Holyoake, says distinctly—
"You may justly take to yourself (addressing Mr. Holyoake) a good share of the credit of having brought about things up to the point at which the Evidence Amendment Act was passed. With regard to taking the Oath, I conceive that when a man has made that a condition of the performance of a public duty, he may take it without dishonour, although he is a person who avowedly feels no binding force in the religious part of the formality."
I confess I was shocked by the views and opinions of Mr. John Stuart Mill. I agree with Mr. Holyoake that it has an immoral effect, and that it has a demoralizing effect upon the public mind. Now, this is the position of affairs before us. Whatever be the fate of Mr. Bradlaugh in this particular Parliament or in this particular Session—whatever may be the decision of the legal tribunals with regard to this, the fact is quite certain that, in a new Parliament, and in other new constituencies where any Atheist may be elected, he may come to the Table of the House of Commons and take the Oath without a single question being put to him; and the House, having repudiated the right of asking questions with regard to occurrences outside the walls of St. Stephen's, even Mr. Bradlaugh may in future Parliaments come to the House immediately after
1364
speaking in opposition to our holy religion, and claim to take the Oath, and no one would have a right to ask him a question about his belief. It is no wonder that my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) was scandalized at the present state of the law and the prospect which was before us. My Lords, let me direct the attention of the House to this fact—that the Bill which was introduced by my noble Friend was a public confession that the present Oath could not prevent an infidel taking his seat in Parliament. The very title of that Bill was—"An Act to make Provision to exclude Atheists from taking part in the Legislation of this Country." If the present law excluded Atheists, there was no need of my noble Friend's Bill. It was quite certain that the present law could not exclude Atheists; and here let me observe that, whilst this Oaths Bill will certainly not exclude Atheists, it is just possible it may exclude someone. If that fact be kept in view, only two courses appear to be open to us. It is perfectly certain we cannot stay where we are; it would be revolting to the public conscience, and lead to consequences still more revolting. There are, therefore, but two courses open. The one is to follow the course recommended by my noble Friend, and to invent a new religious test to be added to the present Oath; the other is to give up the pretence that Parliamentary Oaths can be made actually effective to prevent Atheists entering Parliament. The Bill of my noble Friend was really one to convert the Parliamentary Oath into a religious test. The very minimum effect of such a proposal would be to provide a preliminary declaration of the belief in the existence of an Almighty God. The first objection which recommends itself to my mind is this—that the mere declaration of a belief in a God is of no value in itself whatever. I hope no Member of this House will suppose I intend to say that the belief in the existence of God is not of the greatest use as the foundation stone of religious belief; but what I say is this—that the bare declaration of a belief in the existence of a Divine Being, and without reference to His attributes and His power, is of no value whatever. In saying this, I need not remind your Lordships that I do not use language which is incon-

1365
sistent with the most solemn declarations of the Divine law. The Creeds and Confessions of the Christian Churches do all universally proceed to add to their faith in a God certain doctrines with regard to His attributes and character. We are told in the Divine Word that we must not only "believe that He is, but that He is the Rewarder of all they that diligently seek Him." I may remind the House that we now know that no less distinguished a man than Mr. John Stuart Mill was inclined to believe in the existence of a Divine Being, but distinctly held the view that He was not omnipotent; and yet Mr. John Stuart Mill took the Oath without the smallest reluctance, and sat for several Sessions in the House of Commons. In my opinion, this is not a fit medium for a religious test. The Oath taken in the Northern part of this country, in Scotland, is much more solemn in its form than the English Oath, respecting which we are discussing the present proposal. Nothing can be more solemn than the Scottish Oath, or approach more nearly to a declaration of religious belief. No one who has seen the Oath administered in a Scottish Court of Justice can ever forget the solemnity and impressiveness of the scene. The Judge says to the witness—
"Hold up your hand and repeat after me these words—'I swear to Almighty God, as I shall answer to him at the Great Day of Judgment, that I shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'"
That is something more near a declaration of religious belief than the mere words "I swear," and "So help me God" at the end. The alternative of making the Oath a real religious test was objected to in the debate by two distinguished Members of this House—one was my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who of all men is entitled to speak for the working classes of this country; the other was my right rev. Friend—if he would allow me to call him so—who presides over the Diocese of London. My noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) objected to the proposal on the ground that the working classes were, of all things, jealous about what concerned matters of faith. I believe the time will never come when the services of my noble Friend to the working classes of this country will be forgotten, or that they will ever deviate
1366
from those principles which will naturally follow in their minds from the authority of his life, and the belief which it inspires. But what I think my noble Friend meant was that the working classes are especially jealous of the application of Parliamentary law to matters of religious belief. That is an argument which strikes at all attempts to convert the Parliamentary Oath into a religious test. The right rev. Prelate has a higher and still deeper objection; it is—and never did I hear a wiser speech from a Prelate of the Christian Church—that there are many men who may be speculative Atheists, because they have a difficulty in believing in the personality of the Divine Being, and who would object to a question being put to them as to belief in a personal God. And the right rev. Prelate gave it as his solemn advice to the House not to ask those people to commit themselves to this question of doctrine, whether they believed in a God or not; but to leave it to their own consciences. The suggestion occurred to my mind, while the right rev. Prelate was speaking, that I never feel quite sure that there is such a thing in the world as a real, pure Atheist. I always suspect that there is in all the phases of mind of all men some fear, at least, of the awful presence in which we stand; and I am often confirmed in this belief when I see the violent passion with which the negative position is sometimes taken up. Why should there be that passion? Why should there be that heavy sea on that little bit of water? Why is it? Because there is in the minds of most men a kind of real fear, a real feeling that there is a Divine Being who rules over all. On all these grounds, I say we neither can nor ought to convert the Parliamentary Oath into a real test of religious belief. I say that we are driven to the other alternative, and that is—to give up altogether the idea of converting the Parliamentary Oath into a religious test. And so evident was that feeling in the House when my noble Friend brought forward his Bill, that there was but the scantiest attendance of Peers, while the Spiritual Estate was represented by a single Bishop. That was not because they were indifferent; but because they knew that the condition of things made it impossible for such a Bill to pass. What, then, is the value of the present Oath? It is, it

1367
may be said, a declaration of belief in a Divine Being, which, you ask from every man. It appears to me that every objection urged against the new declaration proposed by my noble Friend's Bill told against the present Oath, if you put upon it the condition to which I have referred. I say, then, the only alternative is to ask men to give whatever promise you like under whatever form is most binding upon their conscience. That is all the power you have, and I think it is all the power you have a right to ask. The Bill simply extends to all persons who object to take an Oath that declaration which is now allowed to certain religious sects. There is a curious anomaly in the present state of the law in regard to these sects. Not only are Quakers, Moravians, Separatists, and others specially allowed to make an Affirmation, but also individuals who have been members of those bodies. But if a man has been ejected from these bodies for grossly immoral conduct, or has abandoned their particular form of religion, he, under existing law, would be a privileged man, and would be allowed to make an Affirmation which honest objectors to an Oath, not a member of these bodies, would not be allowed to do. This Bill meets both classes of objections; it simply provides that all persons may make an Affirmation to whom the Oath is objectionable upon any ground whatever. It would include all those now excluded. It would include Atheists without the necessity of making them go through the form of taking the Oath, and would simply exact the promise required by Parliament in the form of a solemn Affirmation, which is binding upon the conscience of the man who takes it. There is one objection which I have heard stated to the Bill since I gave Notice of it, to which I am bound to make some reference. It is a very plausible objection, and one which, if well founded, would be a great objection to my own mind. I think very likely it may tell in the minds of some noble Lords opposite, as well as noble Lords who sit on this side of the House—I have heard it stated in private by a noble Earl sitting on this side of the House—that at the present moment it appears as if this House were inclined to decide in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, against the majority of the House of
1368
Commons who wish to keep him out. I should say that is an objection which, if it were true, is not fatal, because this House has a perfect right to take its own opinion. The other House may express its own opinion and reject the Bill. This House is perfectly entitled to have its own opinion, and if it comes to the conclusion that the present state of the law is demoralizing to the public mind, the House has a right to express its opinion. But I am bound to say that if it appeared at the present moment to be so, I should think it a very serious objection to the Bill. But your Lordships will see it is an entire misapprehension of the fact. The House of Commons had had three contentions with the Member for Northampton, and, in my humble opinion, the majority of the House of Commons has been absolutely right in every one of them. The first contention was that Mr. Bradlaugh, under the existing laws, had no right to affirm. That contention of the majority of the House of Commons has been sanctioned by the highest legal Court of Appeal in this country. The majority of the House of Commons have a right to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, under the existing law, from coming forward to the Table to affirm. The next contention was that after the declaration he had made at the Table, the House had a right to say that the taking of the Oath by him would be invalid; that his oath was no oath, and that it was not binding on his conscience. That is not a question which can be submitted to Courts of Law. It is a question which the House of Commons, judging of its own honour, has a right to decide. Although my opinion is of no importance in the matter, yet I bring forward my Bill entirely concurring in the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons that, under the circumstances of the case, they were right in preventing Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath. Then the next contention was in respect of discipline. Mr. Bradlaugh was ejected from the House of Commons for conduct strictly contumacious. That action had no reference whatever either to the question of affirming or swearing; but simply with reference to the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh at the Table of the House of Commons. Nothing in this Bill can interfere, or ought to interfere, with the discipline of the House of Com-

1369
mons in respect of its own Members; and I should like to add this, that, of course, we have no right to anticipate what may or may not take place in the other House in the future. On the 10th of March Mr. Bradlaugh circulated by post—it came to me by post, and I suppose it came to other noble Lords—a most violent and scurrilous attack upon the House of Commons in consequence of the vote of the 6th of March. I will not take up the time of the House by reading any part of that address. It was called "An Address to the Majority of the House of Commons," and, as far as I can judge, it is full of matter insulting to the House of Commons; and if the House should be of that opinion, there is nothing whatever in this Bill, or in any Bill which we would pass, which would prevent the House of Commons from continuing the exclusion of this particular Member on the ground of discipline. I will only add, in conclusion, that I have understood from the outset the attitude of mind that finds expression in the Amendment of my noble Friend opposite, and I hope that my noble Friend will not decline to consider the Bill from my point of view. I believe I have proved that the present state of the law does not exclude Atheists from Parliament. I have proved, secondly, that it is an inducement and inseparable temptation to Atheists to desecrate the Oath at the Table of the House of Commons. I have proved, therefore, that the present state of the law is most injurious to public morals, and I think I have done something to show that it has affected injuriously Parliament itself. I submit, then, that there is no other alternative before us than to abandon the religious test altogether. Now, what is the Amendment of my noble Friend? He does not meet my Bill in the face. He does not say it is expedient to maintain the present Oath, because it excludes Atheists from Parliament. It is entirely with reference to temporary circumstances that my noble Friend asks the House to retreat from the adoption of this Bill. Now, my Lords, with these tremendous evils before us, and these greater evils which may be to come, it appears to me that this is simply flying from the inevitable conclusion. It is saying, "A little more sleep, a little more slumber, a little more folding of the hands in sleep." For a
1370
few months, possibly for a few years, you may have an interval during which Atheists without a word of question will take the most solemn Oath at the Table of either House of Parliament, and the New Testament will be kissed by other Bradlaughs. Is that a condition of things which this House is contented to allow to continue to exist for an hour longer? I am not. It is to prevent that state of things—the possibility of sacrilege of our holiest religion from being transacted at the Table of either House of Parliament—that I now move the second reading of this Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read2a."—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to move, as an Amendment—
"That nothing has arisen in the proceedings of this House which makes it expedient at this time to propose a change in the existing Parliamentary Oath."
He admitted that there were many and great recommendations in favour of the course which his noble Friend asked the House to take. He had the recommendation of his own great oratory, of which he was an admired master in the House; he could point to the present state of the law, to its most unsatisfactory condition and to its anomalies, and could describe the abominable profanation that had recently occurred; and last, but by no means least, he could produce a very short Bill—an achievement which in these days had no small merit in the eyes of Parliament. He could make his noble Friend a present of many of the arguments he had used, and would go so far as to admit that the existing Oath did not give an effectual security against the admission of Atheists to Parliament. He would concede at once the justice of all his noble Friend had said as to the profanity that had been perpetrated in the other House, and as to the way in which religion had been trampled under foot; and he would admit that currency had been given to destestable opinions out-of-doors. Those of his noble Friend's premisses he admitted willingly, but he could not accept the conclusion that had been drawn from them. Granted that the present state of things was bad; granted that the future prospect was bad also; the admission constituted no reason for wholly doing away with that which, after all, gave a certain security for morals and religion.

1371
His arguments were substantially three—first of all, he did not think that the measure in itself was one that could be accepted; secondly, even if it were, this was not the place to consider it; and, thirdly, this was not the time when such a Bill ought to be adopted. He discarded altogether the supposed objection that their Lordships, by accepting this Bill, would disagree with a majority of the House of Commons. There was a very serious objection to the Bill in the fact that it was an optional Bill, and that it would place a believer under the obligation to take the Oath, while it would exempt the Atheist from any such obligation. If there were to be legislation at all, it ought to be uniform; it certainly ought not to be optional, giving the privilege to those to whom it was least desirable to give it. This was not the place in which such a measure ought to be passed, because the difficulty had arisen in the House of Commons. For a long time past there had been a wise comity between the two Houses, which had hindered one from interfering in the transactions and affairs of the other, and he would be slow to disturb such a relation. His noble Friend might say, as his speech implied, that it was for the advantage of the House of Commons that this House should step in and extricate them from that difficulty. He was not sure that that might not be regarded as a dangerous interference. On one occasion this year, at the instance of the Prime Minister, a Vote of Censure was passed upon this House because they had interfered with certain matters; and he thought it was wise in a case like this that they should not stir up division. But even if this were the right measure and the right place, he should strongly demur to its being the right time. His noble Friend was far too experienced a politician, much too great a master of oratory, not to know that he would have served his case very much better had he been able to dissociate it from the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. He believed his noble Friend would have had the opinion of the House upon the abstract merits alone; but do what he would, he could not dissociate this Bill in the mind of the House from the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. If they passed this Bill, they passed a Relief Bill for Mr. Bradlaugh, and who was he to whom Parliament was invited to grant this relief? Was it the case of
1372
one with a tender conscience, scruples, conscientious doubts? It was one who had avowed himself an Atheist, and then expressed his readiness to take the Oath, though he knew that it could have no binding effect on his conscience. It was one who had not confined himself to this, but who, far and wide through the country, had shocked the whole moral sense of the community, had shocked the public decency, and had offended all those who, in the simplicity of their hearts and in the quiet of their homes, desired to worship the God of their fathers, as previous generations had done. With this Bill indissolubly connected with such a man they had a right to ask whether it was a case in which the House ought to interpose. The Bill touched the whole foundations of civil government. There was a time when this country was of one single religion; that time had passed away, and they had widened the area to the cases of Nonconformists, Catholics, and Jews; but they had preserved the common ground that all recognized one Father, the sanction of whose name they were willing to invoke in public acts. For his own part, he believed that when once a country became godless, its legislation could not be wise; and when once the fear of God ceased to be, the fear of man would not be of very long existence. Hitherto, in every public act, they had not been ashamed to appeal to the name and the sanction of God. Even in the case of the wisest heathens in old times, they were not willing to depart so far from the Almighty Maker; and the greatest orator of Rome was contented to say, in a well-known passage, that it was not by the numbers or physical strength of the Roman people that the Empire of the world was achieved, but by the belief in the moral government of God. So he held that, whenever this nation should throw aside the God-fearing, God-recognizing character which it had hitherto held, from that time he could augur but evil for the future. He did not see that he could answer his purpose by following his noble Friend into the history of Parliamentary Oaths, or into the case in the House of Commons. The latter was a most painful history, and, perhaps, not the least painful thing had been the conduct of the Prime Minister on this question. He did not wish to mix up Parliamentary

1373
considerations in a question of this kind; but he would say this—that if there was any one thing that had grieved and disappointed those who knew the Prime Minister, and who admired his great abilities in happier and better times, the conduct which he could reconcile to his conscience and adopt on this occasion had gone far to change that opinion. He did not think he need follow his noble Friend through the history of previous debates in this House, except to say this—that just as the House was unwilling then to tighten the Parliamentary Oath, so he believed on this occasion it would be found unwilling to relax it. As to the form of the Motion which he had adopted, he might be asked why he had preferred this indirect form to a direct negative? His first reason was the respect which he thought was due to the character and position of his noble Friend; and, secondly, he was quite willing to admit that if this question were not raised incidentally by the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, he, for one, should be quite willing to argue the question of declaration in lieu of oaths on purely abstract grounds. He was ready to admit that the Parliamentary Oath was not the best test of religious faith. It was of necessity a very bad test. The Parliamentary Oath differed from that taken in the Law Courts, because in them a penalty was attached to perjury. There were two questions which were indirectly raised by his noble Friend's statement. He had alluded to the case of the Quakers. In his opinion, that differed toto cœlo from the case of the Atheist. The Quaker declined to take the Oath on account of his excessive reverence for the Word of God. The Atheist, on the other hand, declined to take it because he treated it as a mockery. Then his noble Friend said they were already powerless to keep out Atheists from Parliament. His answer was that if the Atheist was dishonest—if his conscience was not sufficient to deter him from the sin he committed of taking an Oath in which he did not believe—then he admitted that the Oath did not afford any security; it must be left to the Great Searcher of hearts to decide upon the extent of his sin. But to say that because the Oath had been abused therefore it must be abolished was a perversion of all knowledge. His noble Friend had, as he had already said, introduced this Bill from the best motives; but he would observe that only a short time
1374
ago the National Assembly of France had passed a Resolution abolishing the Oath. The Oath had been swept away, and with it all the external forms and symbols of religion had disappeared from the French Law Courts. On that occasion arguments were used and a spirit was shown which recalled to mind the days of the Revolution and the spirit that led to the enthronement of the Goddess of Reason. It might be said that this was part of the great wave of free thought which was sweeping over the countries of Europe; but this was an instance not of free thought, not of irreligion, but of the anti-religious spirit which had gone so far as to poison the political, religious, and social life of the people. He did not himself believe that this spirit would permanently prevail; but that the wisdom and truth of God would, in the long run, be found to do so. He believed that it was only the fool who said in his heart "there is no God." There were only two methods by which men could meet this spirit; one was by concession and the other by resistance. His noble Friend proposed to cut away all those formulas and all those limits which he would term political weakness, but which had arisen and grown up partly from a religious spirit and partly from principle. He did not think that was the time or the place for volunteering a measure of relief for one who had avowed himself an Atheist, and desired the destruction of the religion of this country, and of all associations that were nearest and dearest to them. For these reasons, though his respect for his noble Friend prevented him from moving an entire negative, he, for one, would be no party to the second reading of this Bill. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Amendment moved,
To leave out from ("That") to the end of the motion for the purpose of inserting the following words ("nothing has arisen in the proceedings of this House which makes it expedient at this time to propose a change in the existing Parliamentary Oath.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had been endeavouring to free himself from the influence of the eloquence of the noble Duke, and to ask himself what was the logical argument upon which the noble Duke wished the House to give a second reading to this Bill. Would not this be a fair compendium of

1375
his argument—that because one man, who had been elected by a constituency to sit in the House of Commons with the universal reprobation of the better classes of society in the highest sense of the term, including the lower as well as the higher strata of society, had refused to take the ordinary Oath, whereby he invoked the name of God, and had been refused admission several times to the House of Commons—therefore this Bill should be passed to relieve him, although he had appealed to the highest Courts in the Realm, and they had decided that he was wrong? The noble Duke had spoken of this person in terms which showed that had he been one of the electors of Northampton he would not have been one of his supporters, and he had argued that the doors of the House of Commons should be opened, and the Constitution be altered, to allow this individual to be admitted. He could not separate the case of this person from the general principles which the noble Duke had enunciated. They were told it was wrong to make the taking of an Oath a religious test. Well, it was not the most convenient way, certainly, of having a religious test; but we here in England were a practical people. He was old enough to remember the discussion which took place on the subject of the admission of Jews to Parliament; and he had never heard that, supposing it were right that Jews should be excluded, it was a thing altogether inconsistent and improper in itself that the mode of excluding them should be the very Oath in connection with which Mr. Bradlaugh was now excluded. The general principle condemnatory of all Oaths was not then brought forward, and he did not see that the present case necessitated the adoption of that line of argument. It was quite an open question whether it was a good thing to keep our Oaths at all. That had nothing to do, or very little to do, with the particular case before them at the present moment. They were told they had better make an arrangement in this particular ease, because a whole stream of persons similar in character to him who had been so aptly described by the noble Duke were likely to be returned by the constituencies. He did not think so badly of the constituencies of England. He did not think so badly of the human race as to suppose that the constituencies were to be at once called upon to make
1376
arrangements for having the office of legislator in this country filled in the particular way which the noble Duke had pointed out. It was perfectly true that it was undesirable to have more Oaths than were necessary. A Christian, a gentleman, an honest man was as much bound by his promise as by his oath. What was the nature of the Parliamentary Oath? It was that the person taking it would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. No one would say that there ought to be no promise made by those who were intrusted with the legislation of this great country; and, if they were to be bound by a promise, he did not see that it made much difference whether or no they were bound by Oath. He was not unwilling that, on any fitting occasion, the Oath should not be insisted upon if a promise would do equally well; but then came the question, were they to hold the doctrine that every man elected by a constituency was entitled to take his seat in the Legislature without looking to any of those arrangements whereby, in past times, our forefathers thought it well to make an accurate distinction between those who were fit to be legislators and those who were not? At present there were certain restrictions as to the persons who were entitled to sit in the House of Commons. No woman, however strong-minded, was allowed to sit in the House; and no minor, however precocious, was permitted to take his seat. For what reason he did not know, no clergyman of the Established Church was eligible as a Member of the House. Why one of the restrictions maintained should not affect the case of a man who had publicly renounced all belief in what they held to be the very foundation of Christian morality and Christian philosophy, upon which all social life depended and which kept society together, he was at a loss to understand. If any mode should be devised whereby they could secure that such men would not use their influence as legislators for the destruction of the very society for which they legislated, there might be no need for such a restriction; but so long as there was opportunity for the persons who lived by agitation against our social life, and against every sanction upon which our political and social life depended, to use the position in which they found themselves to destroy the political and social

1377
life which they were placed in office to maintain, he thought that it would be unwise to alter the law. He could conceive that there was an infinitude of questions of social philosophy that ought to be considered in dealing with this question; but until each of those questions presented itself for consideration he did not think that it would be well to tamper with our existing system, although there might be things in it which they would be glad to see altered. Before he concluded, he wished to say that he had thought it his duty to speak upon this subject as the Head of the Church of England in that House. He held in his hand a paper showing that the sentiment of the clergy of the Church of England generally, as well as of the great majority of the ministers of religion throughout the country, was opposed to the present Bill. The paper was supported by the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, by the heads of the Wesleyan Body, by a great number of the ministers of the Established and the other Churches in Scotland. He could not help thinking that the Dissenting Bodies were more agreed upon this subject than could have been expected from what they heard at the last General Election. He could not also help thinking that there were many gentlemen belonging to Dissenting Bodies who had been carried away by the feelings of the moment at the last General Election, but who now would act differently.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I quite suppose that many noble Lords will be of opinion that, after the able speeches which have been delivered, it will be unnecessary that this debate should be prolonged before we come to a division. Still, I cannot help hoping that I am not altogether singular, at least among the supporters of the Bill, in wishing to abstain from a silent vote, on account of the peculiar importance of the matter, and the vital doctrines which are indirectly associated with it. In a word, it is, perhaps, reasonable on this occasion to wish to be able to say Animam meam liberavi. For my own part, this desire is increased after listening to some of the arguments of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. The noble Earl said, in the course of his speech, that it was impossible to dissociate this measure from Mr. Bradlaugh and the proceedings which have
1378
recently taken place in the other House. Now, if the inference that the noble Earl intended to draw from that fact was that the supporters of this Bill are thereby indicating any support of Mr. Bradlaugh, or desire that he might have been, or may in future be, admitted to the House of Commons, I entirely demur to that inference. The noble Duke pointed out that the House of Commons had ample opportunity for debarring that gentleman from the House of Commons quite apart from the question of the Oath, owing to a certain address which he published reflecting upon the conduct of the majority. My Lords, I venture to think that this measure, emanating from your Lordships' House, if it be carried, will be a measure carried simply on grounds of public policy, and with sincere regard to the interests of morality and religion; for, however much we may regret the incidents which have taken place, and which have influenced the noble Duke in bringing forward this measure, we cannot ignore them. They are matter of history. We may regret them, and wish to forget them; but we may be sure that others will not forget them, and that the strife which, unhappily, has raged around this question of the Oath will be renewed at another time. The noble Earl said that the noble Duke desired to abolish the religious element in the Oath. My Lords, I do not see anything of the kind in the measure. The measure provides only for an exceptional state of matters, should such arise. The Oath would continue to be the ordinary, and, I hope, the universal, mode of proceeding. My Lords, I dare say it would have been very reasonable to argue—I dare say it was argued at the time of the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill—that in the event of that Bill being passed, the Constitution would cease to be Protestant; but, my Lords, it has been shown that the Protestant character of the Constitution has not been affected by it. My Lords, I think we must all admit that the time of religious tests has passed away. We admire the motives that prompted them, and desire the maintenance of the doctrines which they were intended to protect; but why should we be reluctant to admit that this particular mode of protection is not adapted to the altered times and circumstances in which we live? This House

1379
is opened by prayer; but if it were proposed to make the attendance of every Member of the House compulsory, it would probably be opposed by those who would most regret the abolition of the present system of opening our proceedings with prayer. My Lords, I can only conclude by expressing the deep regret which I feel in having to go into a different Lobby from the most rev. Primate. I can only say that when the Primate rose I was not aware on which side he was going to speak, so convinced was I in my own mind that the support of this Bill could in no way be associated with the idea of indifference to the maintenance of those important religious doctrines that I hope will always be inseparably connected with the Constitution of this country.
On question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 62; Not-Contents 138: Majority 76.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hothfield, L.

Houghton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Westminster, D.

Leigh, L.

Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

Lansdowne, M.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Monson, L.

Camperdown, E.

Mostyn, L.

Cowper, E.

Mount Temple, L.

Derby, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Ducie, E.

Fortescue, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Granville, E.

Kimberley, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Minto, E.

Morley, E.

Reay, L.

Northbrook, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Sydney, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Powerscourt, V.

Stafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Sherbrooke, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Aberdare, L.

Belper, L.

Sudeley, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) [Teller.]

Bramwell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Carlingford, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Carrington, L.

Vernon, L.

Coleridge, L.

Waveney, L.

De Mauley, L.

Wentworth, L.

Erskine, L.

Wolverton, L.

Fitzgerald, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Hammond, L.

1380

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Sidmouth, V.

Templetown, V.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Leeds, D.

Norfolk, D.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Northumberland, D.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Richmond, D.

Rutland, D.

London, L. Bp.

Sutherland, D.

Peterborough, L. Bp.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

Exeter, M.

Hertford, M.

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Salisbury, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Winchester, M.

Borthwick, L.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Amherst, E.

Annesley, E.

Brabourne, L.

Ashburnham, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Bandon, E.

Cairns, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Carnarvon, E.

Clonmell, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Dartmouth, E.

De La Warr, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Devon, E.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clinton, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Colchester, L.

Dundonald, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Feversham, E.

Conyers, L.

Harewood, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Harrington, E.

Crewe, L.

Lathom, E. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Delamere, L.

Lindsey, E.

Denman, L.

Lucan, E.

de Ros, L.

Lytton, E.

Digby, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Dinevor, L.

Manvers, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dunsany, L.

Milltown, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Forester, L.

Powis, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Ravensworth, E.

Redesdale, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rosse, E.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Sondes, E.

Haldon, L.

Stanhope, E.

Harlech, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

Heytesbury, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Howard de Walden, L.

Hylton, L.

Verulam, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Wilton, E.

Lamington, L.

Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

Leconfield, L.

Lovat, L.

Bridport, V.

Lyveden, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Manners, L.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Cranbrook, V.

Gough, V.

Norton, L.

Hardinge, V.

O'Neill, L.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Melville, V.

1381

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Templemore, L.

Poltimore, L.

Tollemache, L.

Raglan, L.

Trevor, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Saltoun, L.

Ventry, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Wimborne, L.

Windsor, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Winmarleigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Resolved in the negative.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD UNIVERSITY STATUTES).—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) whether he would consent to postpone his Motion with regard to these Statutes, as no Papers relating to them had yet been laid before the House?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYregretted that the Papers had not been laid before the House; but he would be rather awkwardly placed if he assented to the suggestion of the noble Earl. He thought it would be better to adhere to the present arrangement.
After a short conversation,
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would put off the Motion till Tuesday if it were understood that no Government Bill would be passed before it on that day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmade the promise, excepting only a Bill of great importance which might come up from the other House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not think he need have any apprehension of that Bill standing in the way on Tuesday, and therefore consented to the postponement.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.