Sitting of 27 June 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—North Metropolitan Tramways*; Rotherham and Bawtry Railway*, and passed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 26] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [218].
Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Nineteenth Night]; Bills of Exchange (re-comm.)* [211]—R.P.; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [176]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Fruit-Pickers' Lodgings)* [214]; Highway Rate and Expenditure* [209].
Considered as amended—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4)* [173].
Withdrawn—Dublin City (Highways)* [88].

PETITIONS.
  PETITIONS—DOVER HARBOUR BILL.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he desired to call attention to an entry in the Votes and Proceedings of the House, from which it appeared that an application had been received for leave to deposit a Petition, in connection with a Private Bill dealing with Dover Harbour, and that that Petition was to be considered to-day by the Committee on Standing Orders. He desired an explanation of the entry, inasmuch as he had been to the Private Bill Office, and he could get no information about this Petition. This was an important matter, because the Bill for a harbour at Dover had already been before a Select Committee in 1878, which threw it out, or so modified the design as virtually to condemn the project. In order to provide a harbour, suitable for naval purposes as well as for refuge and commerce, the plan must be so enlarged as to involve nothing short of £10,000,000; and as he objected to this mode of smuggling an important Private Bill through Parliament for an inefficient harbour, he now raised the question about the Notice.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it appeared from the Votes that a Petition relating to this matter had been deposited in the usual

    533
    way at the Private Bill Office. The proceedings seemed to him to have been entirely according to custom; and he saw-no reason why the Memorial should not go in the usual way before the Standing Orders Committee.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,remarking that he never troubled the House with idle complaints, repeated that he had taken care to inform himself, and that they knew nothing about this Petition, at the Private Bill Office. On an important matter like this—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has raised a question of Order, and has been answered thereon.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Well, Sir, you know I am the most obedient Member in the House of Commons. Tell me what course I ought to take, and I shall be quite ready to obey.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member states that there has been great irregularity. I am bound to inform him there has been no irregularity at all. It is quite in the ordinary course.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I can only say that I did not know Private Business was done in this way.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. B. Coyle and Mr. N. J. Barrett are still detained in Naas Gaol, while six others of the Loughrea prisoners have been released; and, if the Lord Lieutenant will reconsider their cases?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of Bernard Coyle will be reconsidered on the 1st proximo. The case of Nicholas Barrett was reconsidered on the 16th instant, when His Excellency decided that he could not at present order his release.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. Maloney is still detained in Naas Gaol, when the other four men arrested in Monsteravan have long since been released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Maloney's case will come up for reconsideration at the end of the week.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for the further detention of Messrs. Edward Vallely and Thomas Vallely, who have been imprisoned as suspects since May 1881?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the 25th instant His Excellency considered the cases of Edward and Thomas Vallely, and decided that he could not at present order their release.

  BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE EXAMINATIONS—NON-PAYMENT OF RESULTS FEES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a moiety of the result fees promised by the Intermediate Education Board of Ireland in their printed regulations for 1881, on account of students who passed the examinations which concluded in July 1881, was still unpaid; and, if so, whether any remedy will be immediately applied to prevent the insolvency of a public board and avoid actions at law for breach of contract being brought against it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that the Intermediate Education Board were unable to pay out of the income of 1881 more than half of each admitted claim for results fees on account of the examinations in July of that year. The second moiety of the results fees, amounting to £6,590, still remains due. A Bill dealing with this matter has already had a third reading in "another place," and seems to have a fair prospect of becoming law.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ILLEGAL EVICTION BY AN EMERGENCY MAN AT RATHKEALE, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that an emergency man named Cox dispossessed (with the aid of the police) a person named Benson out of his holding near Rathkeale, in the county Limerick; whether Cox had any legal authority for such eviction, more than the authority of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, whether Benson was refused by the Petty Ses-

  535
  sions clerk a summons against Cox for forcible entry; and, if so, by whose authority was he refused such summons?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that an Emergency man, named Cox, with the aid of the police, dispossessed a person named Benson out of a holding near Rathkeale; but Benson was not the tenant of the holding. He was merely a labourer left on the farm after the tenant had been evicted. Cox acted under the authority of a warrant from the sheriff. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had nothing to do with the matter. The Petty Sessions clerk refused to give Benson a summons against Cox, unless he got it framed by a solicitor. He did so on his own authority.

  BRIDGES (IRELAND)—THE RIVER MOY.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a woman named Genty was drowned on the 7th instant while endeavouring to cross the River Moy at Cloonacanana, the spot where a new bridge is to be built; and, whether the construction of this necessary work is delayed by some slight differences which have arisen between the Grand Jury of Mayo and the Board of Works?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Board of Works have favoured me with a Report upon the second paragraph of the Question. An examination has to be made of the foundations of the bridge. The Grand Jury asked the Board of Works to have this done. The Board pointed out that that was the duty of the county surveyor, and the Grand Jury have given him the necessary directions for that purpose. It was a perfectly amicable correspondence, and led to no unnecessary delay. Had there been no delay at all it could not have affected the drowning of the woman Genty, who lost her life in attempting to cross the river at the spot where the new bridge was about to be built.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—SUPPLY OF STORES BY CONTRACT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Committee, which reported in 1878 upon the administration of the Board of Works
  536
  (Ireland), urged that immediate effect should be given to some system of open or limited competition for the supply of furniture and other articles to the Board, so as to reduce the value of supplies obtained without contract, or by contract after limited competition only, from £16,000 to £5,000 a year; whether any, and what, change has been made since that Report in the direction of having competitive tenders for the supply of furniture, and when that change was made; and, what has been the financial effect of the change?
  MR. COURTNEY: This recommendation has been carried into effect as occasions offered, and the value of the stores obtained without contract has been reduced to about £5,500 a-year; this includes only such articles as could not with advantage be obtained by open competition.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS— AGGREGATE PRODUCE COLUMN.
  MR. RANKINasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he would take into his consideration the advisability of adding to the forms for the annual Agricultural Returns columns to be filled in with the number of bushels or tons grown, per acre, of the various crops under cultivation, in order to obtain some statistics as to the quantity of British agricultural produce, as well as merely the number of acres sown?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am well aware of the importance of the Returns suggested in the Question of the hon. Member, and the question has for some time been under the consideration of the Department; but the difficulties in the way of producing such Returns are really very formidable—not merely the difficulty of securing the assistance of farmers in such a matter, but it seemed almost impossible to estimate the production of certain crops. For instance, a permanent pasture is largely consumed by animals on the spot, and these animals are partly fed by other crops. At the same time, as I have said, the matter is still under consideration; and I may suggest to the hon. Gentleman, if he has any ideas on the subject, that he should call at the Department and see Mr. Gray, who is at the head of the Statistical Department, and confer with him on the subject.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS— SITTINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the approaching sittings of the Land Commissioners at Belfast, there are 63 cases of appeal entered for hearing from the county Armagh, of which 49 are on the part of the landlords; and, whether, in view of the expense thus likely to be entailed on poor persons, Her Majesty's Government will recommend the Land Commissioners to hold a special sitting in Armagh for the purpose of disposing of these cases?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that, in selecting places for the sittings of the Court of Appeal, they choose those towns which are, on the whole, most convenient to the majority of suitors. They decided to hear appeals from Armagh in Belfast, and their arrangements could not be changed without much inconvenience to the public.

  INTERNATIONAL LAW—THE SPANISH STEAMER "LEON XIII."
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Spanish steamer "Leon XIII.," which piratically carried off from Singapore Messrs. Wardrop, Hodgson, and Baker, three English engineers, whom the Supreme Court of that colony had ordered to be produced under writ of habeas corpus, was pursued to Manila, its destination, by one or more of Her Majesty's warships belonging to the China Squadron; whether the Spanish authorities at Manila admitted that a breach of International Law had been committed, and ordered Messrs. Wardrop, Hodgson, and Baker to be handed over to the British Consul; whether the Spanish Consul at Singapore advised the captain of the "Leon XIII." to disobey the order of the Supreme Court to produce Messrs. Wardrop, Hodgson, and Baker; whether he was cognisant of her flight from Singapore; whether she was supplied with engineers from a Spanish gunboat to enable her to escape; and, whether it is intended to make a claim upon the Spanish Government for compensation for the suffering, danger, and inconvenience which Messrs. Wardrop, Hodgson, and Baker were subjected to through being thus piratically carried
  538
  off from a British port with the complicity and assistance of Spanish Government officers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The three English engineers belonging to the Spanish vessel Leon XIII., and detained on board on charges of insubordination, were not piratically carried off from Singapore, nor was that steamer pursued to Manila by any of Her Majesty's war ships. The Leon XIII., which had touched at Singapore, was not under arrest at that port, and proceeded on her voyage to Manila with the English engineers on board, but without the captain, who had been ordered to produce the engineers before the Supreme Court of the Colony in obedience to a writ of habeas corpus. The captain having, under the advice of his Consul, disobeyed the writ, was punished for contempt of Court. The Consul was cognizant of the departure of the steamer for Manila, and it is reported that she was supplied with engineers from a Spanish gunboat for the purpose of proceeding on her voyage. The Spanish authorities at Manila dealt with the case in a courteous and friendly manner, and handed over the English engineers to Her Majesty's Consul. The charges against them were investigated by a Spanish Naval Court, and they were finally discharged from any further proceedings. The case is at the present time the subject of correspondence between the two Governments; and Her Majesty's Government have addressed a remonstrance to the Spanish Government against the action of their Consul at Singapore.

  EGYPT—LORD GRANVILLE AND M. CHALLEMEL-LACOUR—THE JOINT NOTE.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as stated by M. Challemel-Lacour in his Despatch of the 17th January last, which has been published in the Yellow Book, on the Affairs of Egypt, just presented to the French Chamber, that Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told the French Ambassador "that he had never thought" the joint Note to the English and French Agents at Cairo, which was proposed by the French Government, and signed by Her Majesty's Government, "could be of the slightest

  539
  use;" if so, why Her Majesty's Government signed the Note referred to, and why so important a statement was omitted from the Papers presented to Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Lord Granville cannot, of course, recall to mind every word that he may have used in the course of frequent and prolonged conversations held between five and six months ago. My noble Friend is quite ready to assume that M. Challemel-Lacour recorded nothing which did not correctly represent his own understanding of something which was actually said. Lord Granville is, however, certain that he never intended to convey any such meaning as the words reported, taken without qualification, would imply. The opinion which he entertained, and could not have failed to express, was that the Dual Note would be useful, at least, in showing the accord between France and England.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I would ask the Under Secretary whether the usual course was followed by the French Government, before the publication of the Yellow Book, in ascertaining if the English Government had any objection to the publication of the several Despatches; whether any communications have taken place; and, if so, why steps were not taken to correct the conversations referred to?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Despatch in question was not referred to Her Majesty's Government; but it is not the ordinary practice to refer Despatches which contain reports of conversations by Ambassadors. The Despatches of Foreign Powers are referred to them; but not conversations with Ambassadors.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is it not the ordinary practice for an Ambassador, before reporting a conversation with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, first of all to submit it to the then Foreign Secretary, with the view of seeing whether it is correct?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is very frequently done; but it is by no means the invariable practice. Some Ambassadors always do it, some never do it, and some will do it sometimes.
  MR. GIBSON: Have any steps been taken to correct the misconception?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Notice had better be given of that Question.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—PREMATURE PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been directed to the frequent delays which occur in printing and issuing the Papers laid upon the Table of the House; whether the Printing Committee could be invited to meet and deal with the subject; and, whether the present system of supplying important Papers to certain public journals before they are given to Members will be stopped?
  MR. COURTNEY,in reply, said, complaints about the delay were not unfrequent, though not always reasonable; but that was a matter with which he had nothing whatever to do, and he had no doubt that complaint to Mr. Speaker and the Committee would receive attention. In regard to the latter part of the Question, it referred to Papers printed by command, and not by order of the House; and for information on that subject he must refer his hon. Friend to the Secretaries of State for the various Departments through whose hands these Papers came.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked how it was that on Thursday last the important Papers about Egypt were supplied to the London newspapers 12 hours before they were in the hands of Members of the House?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could only refer his hon. Friend to the Secretaries of State. He did not know that what he had just stated was a fact, and if he did he should not be able to explain it.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.
  MR. DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the visit of Cetewayo to England has been decided on with or against the advice of Sir Henry Bulwer; and, if with his advice, whether he can state the reasons that have induced Sir Henry Bulwer to thus alter the very strong expression of opinion contained in his letter of 13th May, published as Letter No. 90, in the Blue Book lately issued containing the correspondence relating to the affairs of Natal and Zululand, in which he advises the postponement of the de-

  541
  parture of the ex-King for England until some definite decision has been arrived at with regard to the future of the Zulu country, and comments on the unfair use which had already been made of the permission given by Her Majesty's Government to Cetewayo to go to England for purposes of intrigue in Zululand, with the object of forcing the situation in favour of the ex-King's restoration, and in which he mentions the great uneasiness produced in the minds of the Zulu people by this agitation on the part of the ex-King's brothers, and their uncertainty as to the intention of the English Government, and declares that he cannot shut his eyes to the consequences likely to result from the departure of the ex-King to England, and from the further agitation to which he feared it would give occasion, owing to the ill-use that would be made of the event by the party under Undabuko; and, whether the Government have come to that definite decision as to the future of the Zulu country that Sir Henry Bulwer then declared would alone excuse the permitting Cetewayo to visit England?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am glad the hon. Member has given me an opportunity to put before the House the substance of the telegraphic communication which passed between the Colonial Office and Sir Henry Bulwer, because one report of what I said last night in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was so inaccurate as to appear as if I had strained Sir Henry Bulwer's views so as to place upon him some of the responsibility which the Government is quite ready to assume. The following is the substance of the telegrams:—
  "Secretary of State to Sir Henry Bulwer.
  "June 21.—The delay of Cetewayo's visit to England does not appear to have averted disturbances in Zululand, and it is not easy to justify further postponement, especially as the favourable season will soon he over. We think that the promise to him should be fulfilled, and that his visit should take place without further delay, unless you see any urgent reason to the contrary."
  "Sir Henry Bulwer to Secretary of State.
  "June 23.—The disturbances in Zululand are caused by agitation, which is the result of interference by persons in this Colony who desire to see the ex-King restored. What has taken place respecting Cetewayo has been used in a way that stirs up agitation. But if Her Majesty's Government think it necessary, for the reason given by your Lordship, not to further delay
  542
  the visit, I do not wish to oppose. It should be understood that it does not in any way commit us as to the course to be adopted in regard to Zululand."
  "Secretary of State to Sir Hercules Robinson.
  "June 23.—After communication with Sir Henry Bulwer, have decided not to postpone further Cetewayo's visit. He may, therefore, start whenever ready. Remind him that visit no way commits us as to future course respecting Zululand."
  What, among other things, has pressed on Her Majesty's Government, is the danger to Cetewayo's life owing to his disappointment at the promise not being kept in good faith, and the fact that, as Sir Henry Bulwer cannot send in his Report for some little time, and it will then have to be fully considered before any definite decision can be arrived at as to the future of Zululand, it would have been altogether too late were that final decision waited for before allowing Cetewayo to make his appointed visit.
  MR. GORST: Does the hon. Gentleman expect that Sir Henry Bulwer's Report will be received before the close of the Session?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I hope so.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHinquired whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information as to the disturbances that had occurred in Zululand? He had understood the hon. Member to say that no disturbances had taken place there.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he had never denied that there were disturbances; but had only said that the Government had no information about any actual fighting, and that he did not believe there had been any. No doubt there had been large gatherings of Native Tribes. They had only telegraphic communications, several of which he had read to the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHgave Notice that if the Government did not lay all the Papers relating to this matter upon the Table he should move for them.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he had no doubt they would be able to lay them on the Table.

  EGYPT—THE DIPLOMATIC STAFF.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of the

  543
  illness of Sir Edward Malet and Mr. Cookson, and in view of the present critical state of affairs in Egypt, Her Majesty's Government intend to strengthen the diplomatic staff in that Country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This matter has already been receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Government. A junior member of the Diplomatic Service leaves for Alexandria this day, and further steps will be taken to strengthen the staff.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED CRUELTY TO JACKDAWS AT NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in newspapers that the authorities of the New College, Oxford, caused some jackdaws, who had built within the chapel, to be bricked up, causing the birds to linger, in a state of starvation, for five days, until they died; and, whether it is in his power to institute a prosecution for cruelty to animals in cases of this kind; and, if so, whether he will do so in this instance?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT),in reply, said, that it was quite true that statements to the effect indicated had appeared, but since then denials had been made in The Times and Daily News, and from these it appeared that the allegations of cruelty were entirely unfounded. His right hon. and learned Friend had received a letter from the Warden of New College, in which he stated that it was quite true that orders were given to stop up certain holes in the walls, but it was not true that any birds were bricked up alive in the holes. These were carefully examined, and all other places where birds' nests had been built, by the persons employed in the work. He (the Warden) had no reason to suppose that there was any truth in the statement. It was to be regretted that the hon. Member had thought it necessary to put the Question after the denials which had appeared.

  ARMY (IRELAND)—THE MILITARY RIOTS AT BELTURBET.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Has he yet got a report of the result of the investigation into the late military riots at Belturbet; and,
  544
  if so, with what result; is he aware that on the 15th instant one of the 19th Hussars made an unprovoked attack on a civilian; whether on Sunday the 18th five or six of the 106th Durham light infantry broke out of the barracks and attacked some civilians; and, whether under the circumstances he will exchange the present garrison of Belturbet with other soldiers, seeing that so much ill feeling seem to exist between the soldiers and the inhabitants?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have, Sir, been most careful to obtain a full Report on the alleged military riots at Belturbet, partly because the hon. Member himself took much interest, on the part of his friends, in the occupation of Belturbet as a Cavalry station, and it would be a satisfaction to me to be able to justify his partiality for this place. It is the case that there has been some ill-will between the roughs of that town and the military; and this was first illustrated by an altogether unprovoked assault on five soldiers on the 3rd instant. The soldiers escaped from the violence of the roughs into barracks, but the disturbance was renewed by some others, who rushed out to the help of their comrades, and in the mêlée unfortunately knocked down an unoffending man, who was badly hurt. The officer in command did his duty, and gave every facility for identifying the men, who were brought before the magistrates. Cross summonses were issued against the roughs; but it ended in all being dismissed. On the 15th there was a personal altercation between a soldier and a man who had before been on friendly terms. The man complained to the commanding officer, and the soldier was punished. On the 18th a woman came into barracks, and said that there had been a quarrel between some Linesmen and civilians. Great pains were taken to identify the supposed offenders, the men being twice paraded, but no one was identified, and I seriously doubt whether any disturbance had really occurred. The General commanding the district went to Belturbet, and investigated the circumstances on the spot, and we have full confidence in him, and shall act on his advice. As a matter of fact, the Hussars are leaving Belturbet for England in the ordinary course of relief, and not on account of these disturbances. I have

  545
  every hope that we shall be able to meet the wish of the hon. Member and his friends, and keep a Cavalry force in this, to use his own words, "very healthy and well-situated town."

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE OUGHTERARD BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the 25th of last month, the Oughterard Board of Guardians passed a resolution that the Carraroe evicted tenants should be offered outdoor relief on a labour test, and that each man should get a stone of Indian meal per diem for a period of one month; whether, notwithstanding this unanimous decision of the Guardians, the clerk of the Union informed the tenants that they would be allowed only one fortnight's work from the date of eviction; whether he did this without calling together a meeting of the Guardians; whether, in consequence of their having disobeyed the orders of the Guardians, the evicted tenants have been refused the stone of meal per diem for the last week's work they have done; and, whether the Local Government Board intend to recommend outdoor relief, or further employment for these people, who, at present, have nothing to earn and nothing to eat?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Local Government Board had already been given to this matter; and, finding that the clerk of the Union acted in the manner indicated by the Question, they have expressed their marked disapproval of his conduct, and have warned him that if he again interferes with the administration of relief in such an unauthorized manner it will lead to his dismissal. The evictions took place between the 16th and 15th of May, and consequently the period for exceptional outdoor relief has elapsed, and the Local Government Board has no longer power to recommend, nor the Guardians to grant, such in these cases.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had a Question relative to the evictions in the locality for Thursday. Would the Chief Secretary for Ireland be in his place on that day?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should not; but he would reply to the Question upon any other occasion.

  NAVY—RUMOURED ACCIDENT ON BOARD H.M.SS. "MONARCH" AND "ALEXANDRA."
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If there was any foundation for the rumour which prevailed at Portsmouth last night, and which was there generally believed in, that a serious accident, involving loss of life, had happened to Her Majesty's ships Monarch and Alexandra?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: There has been such a rumour; but I am happy to say it is entirely without foundation.

  EGYPT—PREPARATIONS OF FRANCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give any information as to the alleged military preparations of France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think it will be as well to say at once that I shall not be able to give any information on this subject. If I possessed any information I do not think it would be proper to give it. A similar Question was addressed the other day in the French Chamber to M. de Freycinet, and received a similar reply.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, in consequence of the reply of the Under Secretary of State, he begged to give Notice that on an early day he would ask whether there was any truth in the report of an intended joint military occupation of Egypt by England and France?

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 23 rd June.]
  [NINETEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART III.

  GENERAL POWERS.
  Clause 14 (Power of apprehending absconding witnesses).
  DR. COMMINS DR. COMMINS moved, in page 17, line 15, to leave out "justice," and insert "judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland." The hon. and learned Member said, that the clause gave power to the Justices, wherever the witnesses had been bound over to give evidence under Clause 13—
  "If they saw fit, upon information being made in writing, and on oath, that such person is about to abscond, or has absconded, to issue a warrant for the arrest of such person, and if such person is arrested any justice, upon being satisfied that the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated, may commit such person to prison until the time at which he is bound by his recognizances to give evidence."
  His Amendment proposed to place that power in the hands of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland instead of the Justices. He thought the necessity of the Amendment would be obvious to anyone who considered the nature of the two clauses, taken together, and the power proposed to be given. The power given to the magistrates was that of binding over any person to give evidence at the next Petty Sessions, or to appear when called upon to do so, even although there was no person accused of the offence in regard to which evidence was to be given, and no arrest had been made, and no definite time fixed or likely to be fixed for the giving of such evidence. Such a power was a very important one, and he had no objection to the exercise of it in a rational way; but when a magistrate had made an order and bound over a witness to give evidence, he bound him over to give evidence at some indefinite time. He would give an illustration as the best way of showing the enormous power given by the 14th clause, and the necessity of placing it in the hands of the Judges of the Superior Court rather than the Justices. He would take the late lamentable case which occurred in the county of Mayo—namely, the assassination of Mr. Bourke. In that case there were certain persons who saw four or five armed men leaving the scene of the crime after the murder had been committed. Suppose that one of the persons who saw them was able to identify one of them; he might be bound over to give evidence whenever any one of the assassins was apprehended, which
  548
  might be to-morrow, or a month hence, or next year, or seven years hence. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, and the indefinite period which might elapse, the clause gave power to bind over a witness to appear and give evidence whenever the men were apprehended and the case was ready to be tried. But suppose that a man who was bound over wanted to come to England on his own business. It might be that he was one of those poor labouring men who were in the habit of coming over every year in order to work at the harvest in England. Well, the moment a police constable learnt that he was about to leave the country, he could apply to the magistrate, who would have power, under this 14th clause, to commit the man to prison until he was required to appear and give evidence. It was thus in the power of the magistrate to throw an innocent man into prison for an indefinite period; it might be a week, or a month, or a year, or seven years, and as far as he (Dr. Commins) could see, there was no power to obtain a discharge when the man had once been committed. Here, then, was a most important power which was proposed to be given indiscriminately to any magistrate on the loosest possible information. He submitted that the clause would give far too much power to the magistrates; and whenever it was necessary to have a witness committed, in order that the trial of a prisoner might not be defeated, the power of committal should be in the hands of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and not of the Justices. All that would be involved by taking this course would probably be a delay of some 24 hours, because the evidence would have been taken already, and if it was feared that a witness was about to abscond, such evidence could be transmitted at once to any Judge who happened at the time to be sitting in Chambers or to the Judge who was most accessible at the moment. At the outside there would not be a delay of more than 24 hours. He thought it would do a great deal of good to take this power out of the hands of the magistrates and to give it to the Judges. No magistrate ought to have the power of exercising his own discretion in committing a person to prison for an indefinite period on a mere suspicion—which might, after all, turn out to be unfounded—that he was

  549
  about to abscond. That was the spirit of the Amendment, and he thought it would commend itself to the Committee. He trusted that the Government would accept it, and, by so doing, confine this high-handed power within proper limits.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 15, to leave out the word "justice," and insert the words "judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "justice" stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Amendment was a very simple one, and the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on it could be made up very rapidly, for the view of the Government was extremely clear—namely, that the adoption of the Amendment would weaken the clause. In the event of a witness withdrawing himself from the necessity of giving evidence on an important trial, or if a witness refused to be bound over to appear and give evidence, a single magistrate should have jurisdiction to commit him at once. That had already been settled by the last clause, and why should not the magistrate be likewise able to bind him over to appear, or to forfeit his recognizances in the event of not appearing? The hon. and learned Member had given no reason to induce the Government to accept the Amendment, and their acceptance of it would render the clause very nearly worthless. A witness might abscond with very little or no warning.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, after the word "oath," in line 16, to insert the words "from facts within the knowledge of the deponent."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 16, after the word "oath," to insert the words "from facts within the knowledge of the deponent."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought this was an extremely reasonable Amendment. The Justice, before imprisoning a witness, was bound to have information, on oath, and in writing, that such witness was about to abscond. It had been pointed out by the right hon.
  550
  Gentleman that a person might abscond with very little warning; but, whether the witness was about to abscond with little or much warning, there must be some facts to show that he was about to abscond. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the person laying the information should not act upon mere suspicion, or upon a mere clouded apprehension, but that he should have some knowledge of facts that would entitle him to say that a person was about to abscond. It would be perfectly impossible for any witness to abscond, without previously giving some token of what he was about to do; and he, therefore, thought that this was a very fair demand—namely, that the person giving the information and procuring the arrest of a witness should assign some reason for the belief he entertained. Instead of merely stating his belief, he should be required to supplement it by facts within his knowledge, so as to entitle the Justice to come to the conclusion that the witness was really about to abscond.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not risen when the Amendment was moved, because he thought it required some explanation before he proceeded to object to it on the part of the Government. The clause had been very carefully drawn, and, on the whole, he considered that it would be dangerous to insert the words proposed by the hon. Member for "Wexford (Mr. Healy). Every information, like all the evidence, must be based on facts within the knowledge of the deponent. It would not be necessary that the whole circumstances of the transaction should be given in a simple deposition that A. B. was likely to abscond; but no deposition would be accepted by a responsible magistrate, unless it was based on facts within the knowledge of the deponent. The fear of the Government was that the Amendment might be construed to mean that certain statements of witnesses being about to abscond could not be accepted unless all the facts were within the knowledge of the person making the application to the magistrate. The acceptance of the Amendment under such, circumstances might involve a serious danger, because the magistrate would not be allowed to use his judgment, as in ordinary cases, whereas it was extremely desirable that he should be so allowed.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he did not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. They had an example of what a magistrate could do in regard to sworn depositions in the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and still more so in the case of Major Bond. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, in a sworn deposition in reference to one of the Irish newspapers, swore a lot of things that were not founded on facts within his own knowledge, but upon extraordinary and eccentric information laid before him. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with the Amendment.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought he could strengthen the argument by pointing out that one of the most recently-appointed magistrates in Ireland was a man who had filled a high position in England, but who was dismissed for swearing to facts which were not within his own knowledge. It was proved that Major Bond, the gentleman to whom he referred, had no knowledge of certain facts, although he swore that they were true. The result was that Major Bond was dismissed from the high position he held in England; but he was, nevertheless, considered a fit and proper person to exercise such functions as were to be given to the Resident Magistrates in Ireland under this section. Therefore, he contended that some little direction should be given to the magistrates that they were not to act on their own presumption, which might frequently lead them to mistake for facts what was mere hearsay, or individual prejudice. There ought to be something in the nature of facts within the knowledge of the deponent which could be put into an affidavit before this arbitrary power, to be vested in a single Justice, was exercised.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, there was nothing extraordinary or novel in the clause, which was simply copied from the Act of 1870, which in its turn was in the identical terms of the clause contained in the Petty Sessions Act.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. and learned Member had remarked that this was not a novel provision, because it was copied from the Act of 1870, which in its turn was copied from the Petty Sessions Act. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to say that the
  552
  Petty Sessions Act applied to an accused person, and not to a witness. That made all the difference. They were now proposing to apply the Petty Sessions Act to a person who was merely a witness, whereas in the Petty Sessions Act it was only brought in operation against a man actually accused of an offence. Look at it as they might, the proposal of the Government was to place a witness on the same level as a man accused of crime.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): An absconding witness.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it was scarcely correct to say that the clause applied only to an absconding witness. It was quite sufficient if the person who gave the information was of opinion that the witness was about to abscond. There might be no truth whatever in the statement. The witness might have no intention to abscond, and because someone went to the magistrate and swore that a perfectly innocent man was not likely to turn up at a trial, that innocent man could be arrested and committed to prison. He thought the clause involved a serious interference with the liberty of the subject. The latter portion of it took away from the magistrates the power of committing a person to prison, if he was prepared to enter into recognizances to give evidence, or to produce sufficient sureties for his appearance. That provision modified the clause to a certain extent, but he thought it would be materially improved by the adoption of his hon. Friend's Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that some qualified words should be inserted in the clause. No man ought to be imprisoned on the mere suspicion or belief of another person, in the absence of facts. Of course, if no facts were set forth to justify the suspicion or belief of the person laying the information, everything would have to rest on the presumption of the magistrate or Judge. The question was what words ought to be used after the word "oath" in order to show that the facts were within the knowledge of the party making the oath. He thought that words to this effect might be substituted—
  "That the oath should set forth reasonable grounds and facts that the person is about to abscond."
  The matter would not then be left to

  553
  the mere suspicion or belief of the person making the oath, nor to the discretion of the magistrates, who might otherwise act on suspicion without having any facts at all to go upon. If the Government objected to the words of the Amendment, he would ask them to insert, after the word "oath," these words—
  "Setting forth reasonable grounds that such person is about to abscond."
  Such an Amendment, he thought, would satisfy the doubt which had been intimated by the Chief Secretary a few moments ago.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had moved the Amendment without saying a word about it, because he had thought it was so simple and self-evident that the Government would accept it. But even the fact that he had moved it without comment had been made a matter of complaint by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who said that the Amendment required explanation. He (Mr. Healy) had not said a word in defence of it, because he did not wish to bring forward matter that was incontrovertible. The cases of Major Bond and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, which had been mentioned by his hon. Friends, were notorious cases, and entirely justified the insertion of an Amendment of this kind. What was the excuse of the Government for refusing to accept the Amendment? The excuse made by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was that it was a provision taken from the Act of 1870, and that the clause of the Act of 1870 was taken from the Petty Sessions Act. Was there ever such an excuse made before? What was it that was wanted? His Amendment was that the oath should be made on facts within the cognizance of the person who swore. Did the Government mean to say that the oath ought to be made on facts that were not within the cognizance of the man who swore? That was actually the position in which the Government now stood. It was rather too much to say that a person was to be sent to gaol for an indefinite period upon such information. As the clause stood, a man might be kept in prison not only for months, but for years. There had been cases in Ireland of persons accused of murder being kept 15 months in gaol before they were tried.
  554
  Were they to have the witnesses keeping them company in gaol for all that time? He believed that Michael Barrett was kept in prison for two years without trial. He would put it to the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was the desire of the Government to detain a witness in prison on a flimsy affidavit without any substantial basis of facts? They all knew what the Irish Constabulary were capable of doing, and was a man to go gaol for an indefinite time because, in the belief of a police constable, he was likely to abscond?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that was the meaning of the clause, which said—
  "Any justice, upon being satisfied that the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated, may commit such person to prison until the time at which he is bound by such recognizance to give evidence."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Go on; read the rest of the clause.
  MR. HEALY: "Or until he produces other sufficient sureties, as the case may be, in like manner as before." By this clause they were giving the magistrates in Ireland greater power, in regard to the treatment of a witness, than was given to the Lord Lieutenant in reference to sending men into prison by the Coercion Act. Under the Act of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the Lord Lieutenant had only power to send a man to gaol for 18 months; but under this measure, the magistrate might send a witness to gaol for an indefinite time. Was this the way to treat the Committee? He thought it was not; and, moreover, the Government had not made the smallest announcement as to how these witnesses were to be treated when they were in prison. Were they to be committed to hard labour? There was nothing in the clause to show that they were not. He therefore asked the Government to give some explanation of what their intentions really were. He had no desire to go to a division upon the matter. All he asked was that a person laying an information against a witness should swear to facts within his knowledge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said,

  555
  he thought that the provision in the clause was a very reasonable one. The whole object of the clause was to prevent a witness from being made away with. It was neither to punish a witness, nor to make him amenable to any description of hard labour. He would simply be detained until he gave security for his appearance. He must either be forthcoming at the trial or the recognizance of his sureties would be estreated. Every witness was bound in his own recognizance to appear and give evidence; but if a man ran away, then the case fell through. A case of this kind came before him officially the other day. An important witness in a case quietly absconded after he had been bound over in his own recognizance. It was expected that the trial would come on in the ensuing Sessions, and although the witness was seen at 12 o'clock in the day, at 3 he was absolutely gone, whither, of course, no one knew, and there were no means in the world of bringing him back, or of getting his evidence so as to make it available in a Court of Justice. [Mr. HEALT said, that the authorities would have his bail.] It was not so. All they had was the man's own recognizance; and what was the value of that after the man had gone away? In such a case as that the ends of justice would, in all probability, be defeated. In giving this power, he apprehended that no magistrate would act unless the circumstances laid before him were such as to justify him in coming to the conclusion that the man was about to abscond. He hoped the Committee would accept the clause as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. DILLONasked if they were to understand from the Attorney General for Ireland that the moment the witness was able to procure substantial bail from other persons he would be immediately released from gaol? That was a very important question. The position of the case was this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the object of the Government was to secure that the ends of justice should not be defeated. The Irish Representatives wished to secure that no witness should be taken and kept for an indefinite period in gaol after bail had been offered. If the Government would give an assurance that they would insert a provision empowering the magistrates to accept reasonable bail for a prisoner whenever it was
  556
  offered, and that he would then be immediately released, such an assurance would go a long way towards disarming their opposition, and inducing them to withdraw the Amendment. The strong point in their contention was that a witness who had not committed any crime might be detained in gaol for an indefinite period.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the clause was "or until security should be given." On security being given the witness would at once be released.
  MR. HEALYasked what was to be the amount of the security?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the sufficiency of the security was left to the discretion of the magistrate. He hoped the Government would see their way to give the Committee some idea of what the sufficiency of the security was to be.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that an Amendment to that effect would come on for discussion afterwards.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the efforts of the Attorney General for Ireland to justify proceedings against witnesses under this Bill by what had hitherto been done in regard to accused persons threw a significant light upon the spirit in which the Act was likely to be administered. They all knew the affection of right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite for any law that existed, and it was quite sufficient to recommend the clause to the Law Officers of the Government that a similar clause already existed in another Act of Parliament. But surely that was no reason why the Committee should not amend it. The fact that it was not a novel clause was no reason for not improving it. Its age was no proof of its perfection. Either the person who laid the information would have some reason for making an affidavit or he would not. If he had a reason, what objection could there be to the statement of it in the information? It might be that he had personal knowledge of his own as to the intention of a witness to abscond, or only knowledge of a secondary character and degree. Such an amount of knowledge might be satisfactory; but the facts on which it was based ought to be stated. He had no desire to limit the discretion of the magistrates; but he desired that that discretion should only be exercised on a statement of facts, and not on vague suspicion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 139: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in line 21, after "evidence," to insert "being not later than three months from the date of such recognizance." His object in proposing this Amendment was a very simple one. A magistrate, under the clause, would have unlimited power to commit a person to prison, which unlimited power the Crown did not at present possess. The Crown had power over a witness up to the date of the trial coming on, but after the date of the trial it would be an unfair thing to keep witnesses in prison in the event of the Crown not being ready with their case. He had known instances where, if the Crown were of opinion that they could not get a good class of jurymen at the Summer Assizes, they had postponed a case until the Winter Assizes, and so on. Then, again, if they were of opinion that jurymen selected from a certain locality would be unfavourable, they deferred the trial, and changed the venue. Now, he thought there ought to be some guarantee that a magistrate should not have power to keep these persons in gaol from Assize to Assize, according to the manner in which a trial was postponed. He wanted to know what the intentions of the Government were, and he respectfully asked to have a clear and distinct statement from them whether this power was to be unlimited so long as the trial had not taken place?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 21, after the word "evidence," to insert the words "being not later than three months from the date of such recognizance."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was quite impossible to accept this Amendment. Take the case of a prisoner committed for trial immediately after the Summer Assizes; there might be no Assize for three months, or there might be no Winter Assizes at all, and the trial could not, therefore, come on until the Spring Assizes, and the witness would have ample time to run away in the meantime. At present the law under the Petty Ses-
  558
  sions Act, required a witness to enter into recognizances to appear at the next Assizes. The object of the clause was to give the magistrate power to commit a witness until the trial, unless he entered into recognizances, and gave sureties to appear.
  MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was willing to insert in the clause "until the next Assize?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that would be unnecessary, as it was the law at present. The object of the clause was to prevent witnesses from being made away with. When the magistrates took evidence against a prisoner, and committed the prisoner for trial, they bound over the witnesses to appear and give evidence upon the trial; but, "although they took a horse to the water, they could not make him drink," and a witness might say, "I will not enter into recognizances to appear." If a witness said that, the magistrate was entitled to commit him until the trial took place; if, on the contrary, he merely entered into his own recognizance, he might abscond.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that was perfectly true, and he knew very well how the law now acted, or was read. But the magistrate might interpret this new clause very loosely, and when the time for the trial came on, and it was found that the Crown were not ready to proceed with it, the magistrate might order a witness to go back to gaol and enter into fresh recognizances to appear again.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)pointed out that this provision had been in force upwards of 10 years, and had been applied by Judges and magistrates.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland trusted a little too much to the fact of this being an old provision, and forgot that in Section 13 there was a power to bind a witness over, not to the next Sessions, but to whenever he might be called upon, which might be for a year or two, or even five years. Under the ordinary Criminal Law, the magistrate who took depositions bound over the witnesses in a certain amount to appear at the next Sessions or Assizes, and after that he had no more to do with the recognizances. The witness was bound to appear, and

  559
  then there might be an enlargement of the recognizances. At present there was no power by which a magistrate or a Judge could exact such recognizances as this section proposed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) has handed in an Amendment which cannot be put if this one is negatived.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Wexford to withdraw his Amendment in order that he might move his. As he understood the clause, it gave discretion to the magistrates to commit a witness to prison, or to release him upon sufficient sureties. He did not wish for Justices to have that discretion, but to provide distinctly that if a witness could provide sufficient sureties, he should no longer be detained in custody. His Amendment proposed to leave out all the words after "evidence," and insert "no such witness shall be detained in custody if he produce sufficient sureties." He thought that would be a much better way of expressing the power given to the Justices than that contained in the clause, under which, as he understood it, a magistrate would not be obliged to release a witness, even though he did produce sufficient sureties.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford ought not, under any circumstances, to withdraw his Amendment, because it was perfectly clear that some limitation of time was absolutely necessary, and should be stated distinctly in the clause. If there was no such limitation, a witness might be placed under bail, and not be called upon for five years.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, three months limit had been put into the Bill last Friday.
  MR. HEALYsaid that referred to cases where persons were charged. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) had not been dealt with; there would be no limitation fixed for recognizances, and the witness would simply be exposed to be called upon, or he might be kept in prison for an indefinite period. The Attorney General had said he was willing to insert "until he otherwise," and the Irish Members were willing to accept that. There was a case in which a man had been kept in prison for two years; and Weldon and M'Hugh had been
  560
  kept in prison for 15 months. Surely that was not what was desired. What he and his hon. Friends wished was to compel the Crown to bring prisoners to trial, and as the Government had their own Special Commission, to be issued by the Lord Lieutenant, such Commission could be issued at any time. It was, therefore, unfair to propose that witnesses should be kept in gaol more than three months.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that where a person was charged, there would be no greater power under this section than existed in any ordinary case with ordinary circumstances, where a witness, either in this country or in Ireland, contumaciously refused to be bound over. Such a witness was bound over in certain terms, and the present proposal was in no way different from the ordinary practice. It simply meant that the witness should appear at the next trial, and that might be not only at the Assizes, but at the Sessions, or before a Special Commission. He should have thought the existence of a Special Commission would have lessened the inconvenience; and, whether that was so or not, the Bill only applied to the general law dealing with contumacious witnesses as it was in England. He thought no ground had been shown for an alteration.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he could not understand what, if that was so, was the object of this clause. It was simply wasting the time of the Committee upon a clause which simply reiterated the ordinary law. The object of the Amendment was to guard against a person being detained; and if the Lord Lieutenant had extraordinary powers for bringing trials on rapidly, there should be no objection to putting in a limitation of three months, during which the witness was to be bound to give evidence. If the Lord Lieutenant did not trust a jury, he could issue a Special Commission at any time. In the case of the murder of Lord Leitrim, the prisoners M'Grenahan were detained until one died of typhoid fever and another was ill with the same complaint. Bernard M'Hugh suffered seriously in health during his six months in prison, and it was exceedingly likely that in the case of the murder of Lord Leitrim, and of Mr. Young, the sureties offered would

  561
  not be of a character which would be accepted by the Justices as sufficient. What was aimed at now was to provide that no witnesses under this clause should be kept in prison longer than three months.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)explained that in ordinary cases witnesses were bound over to prosecute, as it was called. That meant that they were bound to appear at the trial whenever it took place. If a witness did not appear, or give an intimation that he did not intend to appear, his attendance was secured by sureties or by committal to prison. They now had to deal with another class of cases—namely, cases of witnesses who intended to abscond. The period of detention would be defined not as three months, or at the next Assizes, but the next trial whenever that took place, and there was far more security now than there bad been for an earlier trial.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, there was no obligation on the Lord Lieutenant to bring on an early trial, and what was wanted was that the witness should not be kept in prison.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the question was not whether the Justices at present had power to commit a witness who had not produced recognizances, and whom the Court could arrest if it came to the conclusion that such a witness intended to abscond. It was a question whether this clause was not more powerful than the last, and he could not understand why the Government should wish to postpone a trial for more than three months. What was objected to in this clause was an absence of a limited period during which a witness might be committed to prison. Nobody could object to a reasonable time for bringing a prisoner to trial; but one year, two years, or more, was much too long a time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the accused person must be brought up for trial within two months of arrest, under this special tribunal.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought that fact was good as to persons to be charged before a jury; but the Crown wished to punish witnesses in this case where they had no evidence. That was the case with the prisoners charged with the murder of Lord Leitrim, and in the
  562
  case of the Boyds; and in the latter case, against whom there was no evidence, one had become raving mad. If three months was not long enough, then four might be given; and it could not be said that that was not enough for bringing a prisoner up for trial under any circumstances. This was a matter of great importance, and the Government were not acceding to anything. They said this was the ordinary law. If that was so, why should they not make this clause simply declaratory? But there was something in the mind of the Attorney General which could not be got out, and he should go to a division.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment to which the Attorney General referred gave no satisfaction at all, because it only provided that persons to be tried by a Special Commission should be tried within two months, and then the Special Commission might postpone the trial for any cause they deemed sufficient. In any case this Amendment touched the complete irresponsibility of the special tribunal. He could not understand the course taken by the Government on this clause. The Attorney General for Ireland said he was willing to accept the words "until the next Assizes."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had only suggested to say "until the trial."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, of course, begged the whole question, because there was no assurance when the trial would take place. A person might be imprisoned on evidence which might disclose no facts, but merely an impression, and no option of recognizance might be given to the witness. The Government said three months was not a sufficient time, and he would invite the Committee to consider the enormous power the Government had of bringing their case to trial; in regard to minor cases they had stipendiary magistrates, and for graver offences they had the Assizes or a Special Commission, which might sit when they liked. There was no security that a witness might not receive, at the hands of the Justices, a heavier punishment than the accused person. Suppose the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary was not satisfied with the evidence given before a Special Commission, and sent the prisoner

  563
  to the Assizes, the Judges might be glad to have a postponement on the mere application of the Government, and they might postpone the trial from Assize to Assize, or from year to year; and, in that way, a man who was merely a witness might lose his life. This was an extremely important Amendment, which touched the whole question of whether the magistrates should be allowed to impose torture upon people under this clause. He had no objection to the argument of the Attorney General, that it was necessary to have the witnesses in Court when the trial took place, and he only asked that a witness should not be subjected to unreasonable and uncertain imprisonment.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he did not think the Government had given any sufficient reasons for refusing to accept the Amendment. They had endeavoured to wriggle out of the position in which the clause placed them; and no Member of the Government had touched on the real question at all. With regard to bail, the Government might require such an amount as it would be utterly beyond the power of poor men to provide; and, in consequence, those men might be sent to prison. The Government had given no answer whatever to the complaints made against what was the well-known system in Ireland, and there was no use in talking about what was the practice in England, because it was well known in Ireland, when the Government could not get evidence, for them to remand the prisoner from Assize to Assize, until they might have inflicted one year or two years' imprisonment upon a man. That was done so frequently that it was the well-known proceedure of the Courts. A constable swore an affidavit that he had reason to believe that important evidence was about to be brought forward. That was all that was asked for; and there had been cases over and over again in which a constable had demanded, without the slightest justification, a summons against a witness without being asked for any statement of his grounds for so doing; and the witness being brought forward, and not giving any evidence, was remanded as often as the Crown chose to propose. The punishment of being kept in gaol as an untried prisoner was a punishment of the gravest kind, and he had known men who had told him
  564
  that they would rather have had a year of penal servitude than a year's imprisonment as an untried prisoner, because solitary imprisonment had a worse effect than a year in a convict prison. As the clause now stood, there was no security that a person would not be sent to prison for a year or two, as had often happened. It was no use for the Government to talk about justice; would they give an assurance, or insert some words providing that no witness should be held a prisoner under the clause for more than three months? Surely that was a reasonable request to have conceded; it would disarm much of the opposition. The Attorney General had said the latter part of Clause 14 was simply a re-enactment of the law in England; but, as he understood, the law in England had a Petty Sessions. When a witness was called the magistrate might put him upon his own bail to appear at the trial, and then he was free to do as he liked. Unless his recognizances failed, he was a free man until the trial, and then if he was not forthcoming he forfeited his bail. But under this clause any man who was to leave his own district for business purposes would be liable to imprisonment on the suspicion of an intention to abscond. This feature was now introduced for the first time into an Act of Parliament, and a man whose business required him to be in different districts might be placed for an indefinite period under police control, and if he expressed any intention to leave his district on business, the police could instantly swear that he intended to abscond, and he would be arrested. By the last Amendment accepted by the Government, hon. Members were debarred from requiring any reasonable grounds for a policeman's statement of belief. He had merely to state his belief, and the man against whom he made the statement could be at once arrested and taken before a magistrate. A man might be sent to prison and held there until the trial, which might not come off for 15 months. All that was now asked for was that where they had witnesses in prison waiting for trial, that trial should come off at the next Assizes, and should not be postponed indefinitely, waiting for fresh evidence. As the clause stood at present, there was no security that a witness might not be kept in prison for five years.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he wished to ask a question on a point essential to this discussion. He wanted to know whether the clause meant that a magistrate was to have the power of refusing sufficient bail? That was a very important question. The clause said that the magistrate might commit the witness to prison, or might accept sufficient sureties. Would the Government consent so to alter the wording of the clause as to make it run—"unless he produces sufficient sureties?" There were really two points raised in this matter—first, as to whether the Justice should, under any circumstances, have a right to refuse sufficient bail; and, secondly, no matter what the amount of bail might be, the witness should not be imprisoned for a longer period than three months. These were two distinct questions, and as to the first of them he thought the Government might be expected to make a concession.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, no reasonable amount of bail could be refused; and if such reasonable bail were refused, the person concerned could appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, and have the magistrate's order quashed. But it was utterly impossible to fix anything in the Bill as to what should be the specific amount of bail.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he did not ask the Government to define exactly what should be the amount; but only to alter the clause so as to make it say that a Justice should not commit a witness to prison if that witness could produce sufficient sureties. As the clause stood, the Government appeared to say to the magistrate—"Commit him to prison, if you like, and refuse any amount of bail, if you like." If that were not the position of the Government, why, he asked, did they adhere to language which failed to convey their intentions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the language used was the language ordinarily used in such cases, and if it were altered, the very doubt suggested by the hon. Member would be created. It was much better to keep to the ordinary and well-understood language.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are one or two Amendments on this point which will come on afterwards; for the present
  566
  we must discuss the Amendment before us as to the three months.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was proposed to insert the "first gaol delivery" instead of the "three months," and he did not understand why the Government did not accept that. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) that it was the habit of the Government in Ireland to put off a trial from one gaol delivery to another. Was that the case? Was it true that at the pleasure of the Government a man was held in prison beyond the period absolutely necessary—that was to say, beyond the first gaol delivery? If it was not intended to carry out some such system as that, he could not understand why, in order to facilitate the progress of the Bill, they could not accept the proposal to insert the words "first gaol delivery" instead of the words "three months." Was it the habit in Ireland to put off trials from one gaol delivery to another when the prosecution at the first gaol delivery had not obtained sufficient evidence? Was that the reason why the Government refused to accept the amended Amendment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The law in England and in Ireland is precisely the same. There is not a particle of difference between them on this point. There are certain conditions and circumstances under which a trial may be postponed, and unless those conditions exist, a man is entitled to be tried, or discharged.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, this was no answer at all. It was admitted that the law of the two countries on this point was the same; but the practice was very different. He was acquainted with scores and scores of cases in which trials had been put off in this manner from gaol delivery to gaol delivery. The fact was, that the Government were determined to make sure of punishment whether guilt was proved or not. However, it was of no use asking the Government for concessions upon the matter. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had asked why it was that the Government did not grant a reasonable concession? The reason was that there was a secure majority at the back of the Government, and any act of cowardly and abject tyranny practised in Ireland would have the support of

  567
  the Liberal Party. He believed it would not be in Order on this Amendment to refer particularly to the treatment of prisoners; but he would only say that the refusal of the Government to secure the freedom of witnesses was simply a return to the old principle of evidence under threat of torture. Evidence under threat of torture, which was now introduced into the Irish administration of the Government, was a modern illustration of the principle of the school of Charles James Fox, which came very well from the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Her Majesty's Government would only reap this result from the barbarity of their Bill—that they would find it to be an infinitely less efficient measure, when crowded in this way with barbarities merely introduced for the sake of ornament. It would be an infinitely less efficient weapon against crime than if the Government had accepted Amendments which would have placed the conscience and the feeling of the people on the side of the law. The Government, however, would go their own way, and they would probably come to the same disastrous end in their domestic policy that they had come to in their foreign policy.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had suggested that the trial should take place at the next gaol delivery. But supposing that at the next gaol delivery the prisoner found his evidence incomplete, and wanted a postponement? If the witnesses could not be bound over for a longer period, the Judges would naturally say—"We would gladly postpone the trial, but the law has taken away from us the power to do so;" and there would thus arise considerable inconvenience and perhaps danger to the prisoner. He (Mr. T. C. Thompson) would, therefore, suggest that the witnesses should be bound over until the next gaol delivery in every case except when, at the request of the prisoner, the trial was ordered to be postponed.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had made a most extraordinary statement—one of those extraordinary statements to which they had been so frequently accustomed—about the law being the same in the two countries. They knew that the law was exactly the same, but the practice was
  568
  tremendously different. It was notorious in Ireland that the prosecution could get any postponement they chose to ask for, and they were in the habit of asking for it continually. He knew that in November last, there were 61 prisoners for trial at the Cork Assizes. Some of them were tried, but no less than 41 were left in prison and their trials postponed, and those men were to this hour in Cork Gaol. The Government had their two informers on the spot at the time, but he thought it would be some time before they got another informer to go to Cork. Those 41 young men had been lying in Cork Gaol from that hour to this, waiting until the Crown took it into its head to try them, and they might be there for the next two years, notwithstanding all that their friends could do to get them tried. This was the sort of thing that it was sought to guard against, and it was absurd to talk of the law being the same for the two countries when they knew that the practice was so different. There were 41 young men lying from November last until to-day in Cork Gaol because the Government knew that they could not and never would be able to convict them. It was now proposed that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to give them a good dose of imprisonment before they were discharged. And not only were the prisoners to be imprisoned at the discretion of the Government, but a little term of imprisonment was also to be given to God knew how many witnesses!
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the men in question were not arrested in November last, but during the time when the Winter Assize was actually being held, and, therefore, they had to be detained until the next gaol delivery.
  MR. SEXTON: They were arrested in December.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Winter Assizes were going on in January as well as in December, and the trial had to be postponed to the Spring Assizes, due notice being given to the prisoners.
  MR. GILLsaid, he could not understand why the Government would not accept this very reasonable Amendment—one of the most reasonable that had been proposed. The refusal of the Government to accept it was altogether inconsistent, in his opinion, with the promise

  569
  they gave the other evening that no evidence given by a witness should be used against himself. He was now to be punished in anticipation for his evidence, and the less important that evidence was the greater the punishment would be, because where the evidence was really important and conclusive, the accused person would be very quickly brought to trial; but where the evidence was not sufficiently conclusive, the trial might be delayed for months, and the witnesses kept in prison all the time. All this might happen because the witness was about to give evidence against another person, whereas, if his evidence incriminated himself, he could not be put on his own trial at all.
  MR. CARBUTTappealed to the Government to reconsider this question, and make some concession. If they did not, he should be obliged to vote against them.
  MR. BIGGARpointed out that the prisoners detained in Cork Gaol were not even tried at the Spring Assizes, for an application was made by the Crown upon affidavit that the trial should be postponed, and it was postponed accordingly. The trial, therefore, could not now take place until July, some six or seven months after the arrest. There was no certainty that the trial would even then take place, for there might be a similar application made again for postponement.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the Government would not give way. The Amendment was altogether a mistake. If the clause passed as it stood, there would be no bail whatever given in Ireland for the future, and the Government would have done their very best to defeat their own object.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 197: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved to omit, in line 22, the words "or until," for the purpose of inserting the word "unless." The clause, as it read, was that a witness might be arrested if it was apprehended that he intended to abscond, and he might be committed to prison until he produced sufficient sureties. The Amendment would make the clause read—"unless he produced sufficient sureties," &c. He would not con-
  570
  test what the Solicitor General for Ireland had said some time ago about the phraseology of the clause being in accordance with the Act which regulated the Petty Sessions Courts; but he would impress upon the Committee that that was an exceptional measure, that it dealt with exceptional circumstances, and if there was no difference, as a matter of fact, still it would be as well to use language that would be popular and well-understood, if that language could be introduced without changing the object of the clause. His object in proposing this Amendment was that a Justice of the Peace should not have the power of committing a witness to prison in the event of his being able at any time to produce satisfactory and sufficient sureties for his appearance.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 22, leave out the words "or until," and insert the word "unless."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or until' stand part of the clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the part of the clause to which the Amendment applied related to the giving of sureties in the case of a man who was bound under recognizances to give evidence. The words, as they appeared in the clause, were the words of the Act of 1870, and if the hon. and learned Member would examine them carefully, he would see that the object he had in view was entirely carried out by the words as they stood. They gave power to a magistrate, if he had information, in writing and on oath, that a witness was about to abscond, or had absconded, to issue a warrant for the arrest of such person, and if such person were arrested, then any Justice, upon being satisfied that the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated, might commit him to prison until the time at which he was bound by such recognizances to give evidence, or until he produced other sufficient sureties? The hon. and learned Member proposed to strike out the words "or until," and make the clause read in this way—That a Justice might commit such person to prison until the time at which he was bound by his recognizances to give evidence, or unless he produced other sufficient sureties. The same object would be attained, he

  571
  thought, by the clause as it stood, which meant that the witness was to be committed unless he produced sureties at the time of his committal, and if he produced them afterwards, then he would be released. He thought it would be better to allow the clause to remain as it was, so that a witness should have power to produce his sureties either at the time of his committal or at any other time. The Government wished to carry out the same object as the hon. and learned Member had in view; and the only difference between them was that the Government thought the clause, as it stood, would carry out the object better than the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that if the magistrates would interpret the clause as the hon. and learned Attorney General did, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would be justified in withdrawing his Amendment; but he thought the interpretation of the hon. and learned Attorney General was not altogether correct. The clause, as it stood, provided that the magistrates should have a choice between two courses—namely, that they should either keep a man in custody or accept bail for his appearance. The words were—
  "Until the time at which he is bound by such recognizance to give evidence, or until he produces other sufficient sureties."
  In the first case, the clause meant until the trial came on; but then it went on to say—
  "Or until he produces other sufficient sureties, as the case may be, in like manner as before."
  And he could only interpret that to mean that the magistrate would have power to keep a man in gaol until it pleased the Executive authorities to let him out. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo would persevere with the Amendment.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERpointed out that cases might arise under the Act where a witness would not have the benefit of the clear and certain interpretation of the law which the House of Commons always received, and was entitled to expect, from the Attorney General for England. It must be borne in mind that Justices of the Peace were only men of average ability, and many of them were without legal training.
  572
  He had frequently been in a Court where their decision had been made to depend upon the opinion of the Justices' clerk. The magistrates had had to rely upon that officer for whatever legal information he could toss up to the Bench on the spur of the moment. Therefore, in dealing with the liberty of the subject in Ireland in this exceptional manner, he thought the language of the clause should be made so that everyone could understand it. The hon. and learned Attorney General had certainly given an interpretation of the clause which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was unable to follow. He was quite unable to see that the word "unless," which he proposed to substitute, conveyed the same meaning as the words "or until," which he proposed to strike out. It appeared to him that if the word "unless" were inserted, the Justices would have a clear instruction on the language of the clause itself to accept bail, and when bail was accepted the procedure would be shortened.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked, that if there was a dispute about the words of the clause, and the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mayo were accepted by the Government, he presumed his hon. and learned Friend would consent to the insertion of such words as would obviate the difficulty pointed out by the Attorney General. There was only one thing that the Irish Members wanted. If the Government accepted the principle for which his hon. and learned Friend contended, let them use such clear and indisputable words that he who ran might read. Personally, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) claimed to be as intelligent as an ordinary clerk who might be called upon to give the law to the Justices, and his interpretation of the clause certainly was that it left a choice of two courses. He therefore thought it would be an improvement, and that it would make the clause more clear and intelligible, if the words "or until" were left out, and the word "unless" substituted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the matter was perfectly clear as it stood, and, as he had already pointed out, the object of the Government and of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was the same—namely, that the prisoner should not be

  573
  committed if he were prepared to produce sureties. His only objection to the substitution of the word "unless" for the words of the clause as they stood, was that it would create more difficulty than now existed. But if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment, he would consider the matter, and see whether some different words might not be introduced into the clause to carry out the object aimed at.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he saw no objection to that course, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. FIRTHsuggested that both words might be put in, and that the clause should be made to run—"unless or until."
  MR. MARUMsaid, he thought the difficulty would be obviated by inserting the words "unless at any time."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 7, line 22, after "sureties," to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding the amount of the original recognizance." He presumed that the witness who it was thought was about to abscond would be required to give substantial recognizances, and that his sureties would not be men of straw; but it was important, as all parties concerned might be very poor men, that the amount of the recognizances should not be out of proportion to their means. He supposed that the intention of the Government was to make the persons who were accepted as bail give sureties equal in amount to that of the men whom it was proposed to commit.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)intimated that that was so.
  MR. HEALYsaid, then it was not too much, he thought, to ask that this Amendment should be adopted, and that the bail of the sureties should be in amount not exceeding the amount of the orginal recognizances. Suppose that a man were bound over in the sum of £10, it would not be too much to ask that the other persons should be bound over in a similar amount. He trusted the Government would see no objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. He wanted to prevent vindictive recogninizances being imposed. The magistrates might impose a recognizance which it would be utterly impossible
  574
  for a poor man to provide, and if they had agreed to accept £10 in the case of the original recognizance, he thought they ought to limit the other sureties to the same amount.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 22, after the word "sureties," to insert the words "to an amount not exceeding the amount of the original recognizance."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the only object of the clause was to secure that the sureties should be sufficient, and the sufficiency of the sureties must depend on the character of the cases, the nature of the charge, the responsibility of the persons proposed as sureties, and the position of the person who was required to appear as a witness. How could they best arrive at the sufficiency of the sureties? Was it not by considering each case as it arose, and ascertaining what would represent sufficiency? If the Committee laid down an arbitrary sum as the sum that would be sufficient, they might impose a very great degree of hardship upon individuals. Suppose a magistrate, in the first instance, said that he thought the original personal sureties ought to be very high, say £200; if the Committee accepted the Amendment, they would declare that the other sureties should be to the same amount; and although the witness himself might have given sufficient recognizances, it would be impossible to carry out the provisions of the clause unless the persons he proposed as his sureties gave recognizances to the same amount. That would be the effect of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). That Amendment provided that the magistrates should exercise no discretion in consideration of the poverty of the individuals tendered, but that a hard-and-fast line should be drawn, and that in every case the recognizances of the sureties should be to the same amount as those of the witness himself. He thought it would be very indiscreet to accept the Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that the usual amount of recognizances required in a case of this kind was £20. That being the case, did the Attorney General mean

  575
  to say that the magistrates were going to depart from the ordinary practice? The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that magistrates in Ireland, knowing that a witness was likely to abscond, would put down the recognizances at an amazingly high figure. The ordinary recognizances were £20. A man might be able to provide sureties to a similar amount; but if the recognizances were put down at a much higher rate, it would be impossible for him to obtain sureties at all. Then, why should not the Government accept the Amendment, which provided that the recognizances of the two sureties should be taken at an amount equal to that of the original recognizances, that amount being a reasonable amount? The arguments of the Attorney General seemed to him to be perfectly incongruous and inconsistent.
  MR. DILLONsaid, it would be altogether impossible for a poor man to enter into recognizances or to provide sureties to the amount of £50. They might just as well ask a poor labouring man or a small farmer to give recognizances to the extent of £100,000. It would be perfectly possible to get two sureties to the extent of £10 or £20, although in many cases even that small sum would be provided with great difficulty; but if they required sureties to a higher amount, the only result would be to exclude all poor persons from every chance of obtaining recognizances. His complaint against the clause was that it would affect the poor man very heavily. He desired to put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He (Mr. Dillon) had studied the clause carefully, but he confessed that he altogether failed to understand it. Under Clause 13, power was given to the Justices to summon witnesses to appear before them, if they had reason to believe them to be capable of giving material evidence concerning any offence, and, if they saw good cause, they might bind such person over to appear and give evidence at the next Petty Sessions or when called upon. Supposing then that, under Clause 14, information was given that a witness was about to abscond, or had absconded, the Justice had power to issue a warrant for the arrest of such person upon information, being laid in writing and on oath. But supposing that no individual had been arrested for the crime, and that no
  576
  person had been charged with an offence, the information might still be laid in writing or on oath before a Justice or any Criminal Court, and the witness would be bound by his recognizances to give evidence before the Justice or before a Criminal Court. What he wanted to know was whether the clause could be brought to bear against a witness when no person was charged with an offence, and could the witness be put under bail, or be put in prison and bound over to appear and give evidence in case a person might be subsequently arrested and charged with the offence? Could Clause 14 be brought to bear against a man who, it was presumed, was in a position to give evidence, when nobody was charged with the offence?—because, if so, a man might be kept in prison under this rule of bail for many years—in point of fact, for an entirely indefinite period, because nobody might be charged at all, and no trial might ever take place.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had endeavoured to answer previously the question which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) now put to him. If the hon. Member would refer to line 10 of the 13th clause, he would find that the words "within three months" had been inserted, so that the power would only extend over a period of three months. The clause now read—
  "The law relating to a witness when summoned within three months before a justice having jurisdiction, and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint, shall apply to a witness summoned under this section."
  MR. DILLONasked if he was to understand that, supposing a witness within three months was summoned to give evidence, and it was then feared that he was about to abscond, he could be proceeded against, and at the end of the three months be discharged if nobody was arrested?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, without doubt, that would be so. He could not be kept in prison one hour beyond the three months.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, it appeared to be obvious to him that a man might be brought up every three months for 30 years, as regularly as the seasons came round.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupported the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He thought the Government might fairly fix some figure in regard to the recognizances of sureties, and his reason for saying so was this. He had proposed an Amendment on Clause 13 to provide that the recognizances of sureties should not be more than £10, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland accepted an Amendment to that effect on line 8 of the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he believed that Amendment applied to the 9th clause, which made provision for the arrest of strangers found under suspicious circumstances, and required such a stranger to give security by entering into a recognizance with sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he found that he was mistaken, and that the Amendment to which he referred did apply to the 9th clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)remarked, that that was a different matter altogether.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that by the 9th clause they required a stranger who was arrested under suspicious circumstances to give recognizances for six months; but he contended that a witness was much less dangerous than a stranger who might be suspected of being engaged in crime. If, therefore, it was sufficient for a stranger, found in a district under suspicious circumstances, to provide sureties to a limited amount, then, à fortiori, the same amount of recognizances should be accepted in the case of the sureties for a witness. As the clause now stood, it might be fixed as high as £50; and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) that the fixing of a large amount of recognizance in the case of a man of the labouring class would simply mean perpetual imprisonment. He hoped the Government would consent to put words into the clause to limit the sureties, in the case of poor persons, to £5 each.
  MR. TREVELYANmust say that he saw a great difference between the provisions contained in Clause 9, and the provisions the Government were now
  578
  asked to make in Clause 14. In the case of a stranger there would be no charge whatever against him in ordinary times. The only object of this clause was to give strangers a thorough warning, and to secure that there should be no really suspicious and dangerous persons hanging about a district at a time when, in a certain locality, every person was required to account for his proceedings in order to preserve the safety of the public. This was a very different case. Here an offence, and, presumably, a grave offence, had been committed, and the first public duty and first public interest of everyone concerned was to secure the appearance of the witnesses and the satisfaction of justice, and the Government could not waive those words, which extended such security as should be sufficient for that purpose. They had no reason to believe that this clause would be abused, or that more security would be exacted than would provide that a man should give evidence in the case of a trial of one of those grave offences which had so frequently escaped punishment in Ireland in the past. He thought it was absolutely essential that when the interests of justice demanded that evidence should be given for the punishment of criminals convicted of grave crimes that evidence should be forthcoming.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the point which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was worthy of attention. As the clause stood at present, it would be perfectly possible, and, indeed, very probable, that a witness, after having been bound over to appear and give evidence under Clause 13, at any time within three months, would, under Clause 14, be imprisoned on suspicion that he was about to abscond, and he might at the end of the period of three months be again brought before the Justices at Petty Sessions, without any interval taking place between his release and his re-appearance before the Court of Petty Sessions. He might be again summoned before the Court of Petty Sessions, again bound over to give evidence within another period of three months, and again sent to gaol for three months without any appeal whatever. There was nothing whatever under Clauses 13 and 14 to prevent that. He thought some provision ought to be in-

  579
  serted in the clause to prevent any man from Buffering more than three months' imprisonment under a provision of this sort. If it was the intention of the Government to imprison a man for more than three months under the clause, they ought distinctly to inform the Committee that that was so. If it was not their intention to take power to imprison a man for more than three months, then he thought the clause required amendment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)understood the suggestion to be this—that, under the 13th section, when an offence had been committed, there was power on the part of a Justice to summon a witness to appear before him, and to bind him over by recognizances to appear and give evidence at the next Petty Sessions. But the power given to the Justice of requiring a witness to enter into recognizances was strictly limited to a period of three months. When that was done, the effect and power of the clause would be fully expended, and there was no power to commit the witness again. If it was apprehended that the witness was about to abscond, then the 14th clause came in to enable the Justice, or any Criminal Court, upon information in writing and on oath, that such person was about to abscond or had absconded, to issue a warrant for the arrest of such person and to commit him to prison until the time at which he was bound by recognizances to give evidence or until he produced other sufficient sureties. But the Justice could not go on continually calling upon him to appear before the Court. He had no authority to do that except in one case, and that one case was provided for under the 13th section of the Bill. The effect of that section would have passed away after one imprisonment.
  MR. STOREYasked if he was to understand the Solicitor General for Ireland to assert that, supposing the magistrates were of opinion that a witness was about to abscond, and bound him over to appear, after the three months had expired, if it came to the knowledge of the magistrates that he could give evidence, they would not have power, under the 13th clause, to bring him up before them again? After the first three months had expired, if the magistrates had reasonable suspicion that a par-
  580
  ticular witness had knowledge and could give evidence with respect to a criminal offence, did the Solicitor General for Ireland mean to say that they would be precluded from bringing him up again? If that were so, he thought it would be a serious loss to the cause of justice; and, if it were not, then he thought all the contention raised by hon. Members opposite would follow as a matter of course, and that a man could be committed again and again, and kept in prison as a witness for an indefinite period.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that Clause 13 provided that a magistrate might, within a period of three months, summon to appear before him—
  "Any person within his jurisdiction, whom he has reason to believe to he capable of giving material evidence concerning such offence, and he may examine such person on oath concerning any such offence, and, if he see cause, may hind such person by recognizance to appear and give evidence at the next petty sessions, or when called upon; and the law relating to a witness when summoned before a justice having jurisdiction and required to give evidence concerning the matter of an information or complaint shall apply to a witness summoned under this section."
  He contended that, under this clause, a witness might be summoned every three months within three years or 30 years. As soon as the first three months were over he might be summoned again.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought it was quite clear that no person could be proceeded against more than once for the same offence. The question was whether they would be able to do the same thing twice over, and he said most distinctly that that would not be permitted under this clause. There was a power given to the magistrates to summon a witness before them, and examine him, and take his evidence. There was also a power, if they suspected he was about to go away, to bind him over to appear, so that the ends of justice should not be defeated. But they could not take recognizances for his appearance a second time. The man would be able to say, "I have given my evidence already. I have no more evidence to give," and the Justice would not be able to deal with him a second time.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that was just the point—whether the Justices would or would not be able to deal with

  581
  a witness a second time. The witness might have more evidence to give, and, as Clause 13 stood, the Resident Magistrate had power to summon before him any person within his jurisdiction whom he had reason to believe capable of giving material evidence concerning an offence. If an offence were committed, a witness might be brought before the magistrates and give certain evidence. Three months might elapse before any person was taken into custody and charged with the offence; and he presumed that, notwithstanding this fact, the witness could be brought up and required to give material evidence concerning the offence. The Justices would have the right of summoning anybody they had reason to believe capable of giving material evidence, and material evidence might be evidence in addition to that already given by the witness. Therefore, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) had properly said, a witness could be brought up time after time, if it was anticipated that he was able to add anything to the evidence he had already given.
  MR. MARUMdisagreed with his hon. Friends. It was a statutable point, and it was impossible to go one word beyond it. In Common Law there was no power to act in the way suggested by his hon. Friends. When once the power given by the clause had been exercised it could not be renewed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it seemed almost useless to propose any Amendment to this clause; but he hoped the Government would accept the one he was about to submit, seeeing that it was one of a very simple and common character. He proposed to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "Provided, That any person so arrested shall be entitled, on demand, to receive a copy of the information upon which the waarant for his arrest was issued."
  He presumed that the Government would have no difficulty at least in conceding that point.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 23, to add at the end, "Provided, That any person so arrested shall be entitled, on demand, to receive a copy of the in-
  582
  formation upon which the warrant for his arrest was issued."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said the hon. Member for Wexford was quite mistaken in supposing that the Government were not prepared to accept any Amendment of the clause, seeing that he intended to accept that which the hon. Member had just proposed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "Provided, That every person apprehended under the authority of this section be treated as a person subject to the prison regulation made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the 5th of March 1881, in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the Better Preservation of Life and Property in Ireland."
  The hon. Member said the Government claimed that this Coercion Bill was to be less rigorous than the Coercion Act of last year. There were certainly two opinions about that, but it was provided that persons apprehended under the Coercion Act of last year, on suspicion of having committed crimes, should be subjected to special rules with regard to their treatment while in confinement. For instance, they were entitled, if they had money, to provide themselves with clothing and food, and have a larger number of hours for open-air exercise than other prisoners. These rules were made for the preservation of the health of these persons, because the Government made use of the maxim which was now familiar to hon. Members, that the object of the Act was prevention, and not punishment. He did not see why the provisions of the present Bill should be more stringent than those of the Act of last year. He thought that persons arrested under this clause ought? at any rate, to be treated as well as persons arrested under the Act of last year. The Government could not contend that witnesses should be treated less favourably than the persons arrested upon suspicion of having incited to crime, under last year's Act. The justice of this was obvious, as it was only necessary in the case of a witness to provide for his safe detention until his evidence was given.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, at end, to add, "Provided, That every person apprehended under the authority of this section be treated as a person subject to the prison regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the 5th of March 1881, in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the Better Preservation of Life and Property in Ireland."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. HEALYtrusted that the Government would accept this Amendment. The object was merely that a witness who was suspected of being about to abscond should be treated as well in gaol as a person suspected of murder under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). All that was wanted was that, as far as the Lord Lieutenant had made rules in this respect last year, they should apply to prisoners committed under this section. He did not think the Government could refuse so small a concession.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he wished to impress on the Government the desirability of accepting the Amendment, or of making some alteration in the Bill to that effect. A witness might be committed on account of his inability to obtain sufficient sureties. What took place now in Ireland? When a witness was committed, as persons had been under the old Statute of Edward III., for not finding sureties to be of good behaviour, it was alleged that for 22 out of the 24 hours they were condemned to solitary confinement. He wanted to know if this sort of thing was going to be extended to witnesses who were unable, under this Bill, to find sureties to appear and give evidence on the trial? Was it proposed that persons so situated should be subject to the ordinary prison rules? He believed in the cases of some of those young ladies who had been imprisoned under the old statute of Edward III., the rules, after considerable difficulty, had been slightly relaxed, and that they were only kept now in solitary confinement for 20 hours out of the 24. This, however, was the whole extent of the relaxation which had taken place. He thought that, at any rate, witnesses and others who would be subject to this clause should know beforehand what they ought to expect if they were con-
  584
  victed owing to their inability to obtain sureties.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the clause provided that a witness might be sent to prison, or be required to provide sureties in case of his being suspected of an intention to abscond, or in case of his having absconded. Had it been left out of sight that this clause applied to a witness who actually had absconded, as well as to those who showed an inclination to abscond? Now, if a witness did abscond, and was again arrested, it was desirable that he should be treated in the same manner as any other person who was in prison in default of bail. When once the Protection of Person and Property Act had ceased to work, it would be very inconvenient and cumbrous to have to keep up a set of prison rules which were well worth making when it was a question relating to the large number of prisoners they were discussing last night; but it would be a very different thing to keep up these special rules, for the sake of a small number of persons scattered over the different gaols in Ireland. He could not himself see in what respect a witness who had absconded, or was proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates by some process of ordinary proof to have an intention to abscond, should be placed in a different position from any other person committed to prison in default of bail.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was astonished at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to anticipate that many witnesses would find their way into prison under this Act. Now, he (Mr. Dillon) anticipated that a very large number would. It would be well for the Committee to face what the clause actually meant. In every agrarian case in Ireland, when a poor witness was summoned under this section, the magistrate would at once believe that he intended to abscond without giving evidence, and it was almost preposterous to say that any man against whom this clause could be put in force would not be called upon to find sureties. Therefore, as far as poor witnesses were concerned, the vast majority of them would be called upon to enter into recognizances, and to find sureties, under this clause. Now, what did imprisonment mean? He was quite aware that the Chief Secretary was in entire ignorance

  585
  of the condition of Ireland in these matters. But probably the right hon. Gentleman had read in the newspapers yesterday that within the last fortnight 14,000 men had passed through the City of Chester on their way to the English hay harvest. Now, he (Mr. Dillon) knew the condition of men in the West of Ireland very well, and he knew that it would be ruining a large number of them to deprive them of the opportunity of coming over to England at harvest time, because they relied upon what they made at that period for paying the rent, keeping the family, and preserving a roof over their heads. In the Province of Connaught, and especially in the county of Mayo, there were as many as 15,000 labourers who visited England every year in this way; and every one of them would be liable to be arrested, on evidence that he was about to abscond, if this clause were put in force. In point of fact, the mere circumstance of the harvest coming round would be seized upon by the police as a justification for suspecting them of intending to abscond. It would be known that they were going to England, and that, when once they got there, they would be at liberty to remain if they chose, and not come back unless they liked. The police constable would, under these circumstances, give information that a man who was capable of giving material evidence was about to abscond, and the power given by the clause would be used in this way in order to take the bread out of the mouths of these poor men, and to prevent them from going to England to earn a sufficient amount of money to enable them to pay their rent. He knew very well that this was not the intention of the Committee; but, at the same time, the power would be made use of in this way in a great many places. He knew many men who had been able to go home after the harvest in England with £20 or £30 in their pockets, upon which they proposed to live for the rest of the year. By this clause they would be placed in such a position that they would be prevented from leaving the country at harvest time, and the consequence would be that they and their families would be utterly ruined. He could not understand why the Chief Secretary should say that the unfortunate persons placed in such a position ought to be treated like ordinary prisoners confined in de-
  586
  fault of bail. He did not think that any treatment could be too severe for the repression of crime; but a very cruel injustice would be done to these men by the Government in the interests of justice if they were to be subjected to the ordinary prison treatment. It must be borne in mind that the persons with whom it was proposed to deal were altogether innocent of crime; and he was astonished that the Chief Secretary should say that it was not worth his while to allow the prison rules under the Act of last year to continue in force, in order that in some slight degree he might ameliorate the condition of men who were taken up, not because they were suspected of crimes, but because they were suspected, upon information which might be altogether false, and which, even if true, would not make it a crime, of being about to leave the country. In the first place, a man might be suspected of having some knowledge of a crime, which knowledge he desired to withhold; and, in the second place, he might be suspected of an intention to abscond. But, in either case, the suspicion might be entirely erroneous, and the man might be innocent of the act for which he was arrested. Moreover, if the suspicions were both correct, the man suspected had been guilty of no crime at all. And yet the Chief Secretary said the Government would not sanction in their case the application of the rules which had been applied to persons suspected of inciting to the commission of crime. He would tell the Committee that the punishment inflicted on prisoners awaiting their trial, and detained in default of bail, was a cruel and savage punishment. He knew something of it himself, and he could tell the Committee that if any hon. Members were confined for 22 hours at a stretch out of the 24 in a prison cell 7 feet by 3 feet, he would never forget it. He himself had been locked up for 20 hours at a time in a cell of this description, and he was bound to say that it was not a punishment to be treated lightly. To many men, the imposition of hard labour would be preferable. The mere fact of being kept in solitary confinement for a long stretch, without anything to do, was enough to drive a man out of his senses.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the Government ought to accept

  587
  some Amendment of the nature of that under discussion. He had always pleaded for a difference of treatment for persons who had been proved guilty of crime, and those who were detained only on suspicion; because suspicion might be entirely wrong, and the judges of suspicion were fallible mortals. He could quite understand that there might be a difficulty in dealing with witnesses, but if they had absconded, then it would be a different matter. The case was very different between a witness who actually absconded, and another who was imprisoned simply because he was unable to find bail. It did not at all follow that a man was guilty because he was unable to find bail, and he thought the prison regulations under which the Protection of Person and Property Act was administered should be applied for the special benefit of prisoners detained under these circumstances. There ought to be a great distinction made between the case of such persons and that of those who had been actually found guilty, and he would suggest that some such words as these should be added to the clause—
  "Provided always, That persons committed to prison under this section shall be treated under such rules as the Lord Lieutenant may make from time to time."
  That would place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant the power of making such relaxations in favour of these persons as be might consider just and equitable. If the Government declined to assent to his suggestion, he hoped the Committee would not leave these persons to the tender mercies of the prison rules. Anybody who knew what the prisons were, and how persons had been treated in them who were perfectly innocent, and the difficulties which had been experienced in obtaining for them some little relaxation of the prison rules, would know how important this question was. He should certainly, on the ground of simple justice, support such an Amendment as the present one, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that as these persons were not charged with crime, or suspected of crime, they ought to be treated as first-class misdemeanants.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the persons who came under the clause would be persons committed to prison for safe custody, precisely in the same way as
  588
  witnesses under the Petty Sessions Act who declined to give recognizances. They were not persons who were suspected of crime, and were simply committed for safe custody. Under the Act of last year it was provided, by an express clause, that persons committed under that Act should come under special rules and regulations. It was urged on that clause that it was expedient to make a difference between the treatment of persons arrested under suspicion and persons actually convicted of crime. He alluded to the 13th section of the Act, which applied to persons not convicted of crime, but who were detained in prison for safe custody only. After having provided for safe detention, express rules were laid down in reference to several specified matters, such as the possession of books, papers and documents, communication between prisoners and their solicitors and friends, and other matters; but the general law applied to witnesses who had absconded, or who had refused to give evidence, and had been unable to give recognizances. He had never heard any objection made to the rules which applied to persons in that position. It was quite plain that they could not have two modes of treating absconding witnesses, or witnesses who refused to enter into recognizances, and who were suspected of being about to abscond. All persons detained in default of bail must be treated in the same manner, and if any alteration was made in the one case it must be made in the other.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that, after all, the 13th section of the Act did not safeguard the really important point in regard to the treatment of persons merely suspected of crime. One of the most important provisions was the power of confining a person for so many hours during the day in a cell. He failed to see for what purpose they should desire to lock a man up for 22 hours a-day, except for the mere convenience of some prison official. Now, that was the important point. It was not a question of safe custody. They could keep a prisoner quite safely if they allowed him proper exercise in the yard. It was impossible for a man to keep in proper health in prison if he were confined for 22 hours in a cell, however much exercise he might take during the two hours he was allowed to be in the yard. It was impossible to keep any man in a

  589
  state of good health under such conditions. Therefore, the Government ought to give some guarantee that men who were not suspected of crime, but were merely witnesses of crime which had been committed by others, should not be made to suffer unnecessarily in their health. There was another point in regard to the question of imprisonment which he wished to mention. According to the prison rules applied to the Irish prisoners during the hours of association, the men were not allowed to converse with each other. It must be borne in mind that these unfortunate prisoners were persons who had not yet been convicted of any crime, and he had seen them day after day walking round the prison yard in a circle, a yard or two away from each other, without being permitted to address a word to anybody. This was practically torture to many of these persons, and he thought he had a right to claim that the Government should put into the Bill words that would protect the men who were simply detained in default of bail from cruelty of this nature. There was nothing at all unreasonable in his demand; there was nothing that would lessen the hold of the authorities upon the witness. He merely asked that these unfortunate men should be treated with something like humanity.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they would all recollect how this section came into the Protection Act, and the fight there was upon it; and he did not think the Committee were likely to be misled by the way in which the section had been read by the gaolers in Ireland. The question was how the rules that were laid down were likely to be observed. He challenged the Government to bring forward in that House the rules which were enforced as carrying out the provisions of that section. They were a disgrace to the country, and he had constantly deplored in that House the heartless manner in which the intentions of the Government had been abused. He thought the Solicitor General for Ireland should give the Committee some assurance that the provisions of the section would be carried out in the spirit in which it was framed, and everybody would then be satisfied. They knew very well that the spirit of the rules at present in force had not been carried out. The rules for the treatment of un-
  590
  tried prisoners, detained simply for the purpose of safe custody, were a disgrace to the prison authorities. Would the Committee permit a man to be locked up in his cell for 22 hours out of the 24? That was the question which they were now asked. The Attorney General or the Solicitor General for Ireland might read the section again for the benefit of the Committee; and he would ask any hon. Member who knew anything about the matter whether the Act had been carried out in any way in accordance with the spirit in which it was passed?
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Solicitor General for Ireland had said the duty of the Committee would be to alter the rules with regard to the detention of all persons who had not been convicted of crime. He (Mr. Dillon) wished the Committee would apply itself to that duty, and if the Solicitor General for Ireland would stand by his own proposal and debate the rules under which untried prisoners were kept in prison, and the treatment they received in prison, he would be quite prepared to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. Hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench, and who represented the Government in Ireland, knew as much about how untried prisoners were treated as they knew how Chinese Coolies were treated; they knew nothing at all about Irish untried prisoners. He had seen the treatment, and he knew how much the officials who came round to inspect the prisoners and receive complaints knew about the prisoners. Hon. Gentlemen who were inclined to speak on the subject might have read the rules under which untried prisoners were supposed to be detained; but it must be remembered that prison officials were in the habit of breaking the rules whenever they thought fit. The points he wished to particularly emphasize were two—namely, that a man who was kept in prison for safe custody, and not for punishment, should have at least five hours' association each day with his fellow-men, and be allowed to talk to them instead of walking round a filthy damp yard with two paces between him and the next prisoner.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment is intended to put prisoners confined under this clause under the regu-

  591
  lations of the 5th of March, 1881, and we must not travel into the whole question of prison discipline in Ireland.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was only replying to the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had said, as an argument against the acceptance of this clause, that if Irish Members wished to make any change in the treatment of prisoners, what they ought to do was to alter the rules of the Prisons Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a clause of the Prisons Act, and the Chairman ruled he was in Order. His (Mr. Dillon's) desire was to effect an alteration in the treatment of prisoners, or rather to secure—they did not care how they did it—that the men who were detained under this clause, and who were not suspected of crime, should be treated at least as well as the prisoners under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He only went into the question of general prison treatment because he and his hon. Friends were challenged to do so by the Solicitor General for Ireland. In making out a case for his Amendment, he thought he was in Order in explaining to the Committee how the prisoners would be treated if the clause were left as it now stood. He was simply showing what treatment the men would be subjected to if this Amendment were not accepted. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had asked the Irish Members to state in what particulars they wished alterations to be made. He had mentioned one matter upon which he and his hon. Friends insisted—namely, that men simply detained for safe custody should have at least five or six hours out of the 24 in the open air, and that during that time they should be allowed association with their fellow-prisoners of the same class, in order to break the frightful monotony of prison life. From his own experience, and from conversation with others, he knew that the punishment of being locked up alone in a cell was to many men a far severer punishment than all the hard labour that could be inflicted upon them. The second point he wished to insist upon as requiring alteration was the diet. He wished that there should be some security that men detained under this clause would get tolerably wholesome food. He believed that, owing to the action of the Gover-
  592
  nors, the men in some prisons did get decent and wholesome food.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is going altogether beyond the Question in discussing the whole question of prison discipline in Ireland. The hon. Member has got a specific Amendment before the Committee, and under the cover of that he cannot discuss the whole question of prison discipline.
  MR. DILLONrespectfully submitted that the object of the Amendment was that prisoners detained under this clause should be treated in accordance with the rules laid down by the Lord Lieutenant under the Coercion Act of last year. One of the rules made by Earl Cowper related to diet, and he (Mr. Dillon) submitted, therefore, that he was in Order in discussing the question of diet.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must rule distinctly that under cover of this Amendment it is out of Order to discuss the whole question of prison discipline in Ireland. If the hon. Member speaks to the subject of the Amendment he will be in Order.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the Committee scarcely understood the point before it. Under this Bill the Government were taking power to arrest men to give evidence in certain cases; and what his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) proposed was that the man who was arrested as a witness should be treated as the "suspects" under the Coercion Act of last year were treated. His hon. Friend had endeavoured to show, as far as he could, the mode of treatment to which the "suspects" were subjected, and his present proposition was so reasonable that he (Mr. Cowen) was perfectly astounded that the Government should refuse it. A concession in a matter of this kind was just one of the things which would tend to the progress of the measure. Men were to be arrested under this clause not because they were suspected of crime, but simply as witnesses. In fact, they were arrested for the purpose of assisting the Government to detect and punish crime; and what was asked was, that such men should be treated as were the "suspects" imprisoned under the Coercion Act shortly to expire. It had been shown that one of the greatest sufferings to which they could subject a man was to deprive him of all associa-

  593
  tions with his fellow men. Was it reasonable to subject a man who was merely detained as a witness to such harsh treatment? The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had very properly said that witnesses were not treated in such a manner in any country in the world. Whatever might be done to punish men convicted of crime, surely they ought to treat witnesses with reasonable leniency.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that when he heard the statements of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and other Gentlemen who, like the hon. Gentleman, were able to speak from personal experience, he was amazed to find that the Government had not taken some steps to mitigate the terrible severity of the treatment to which men detained under this clause could be subjected. If men who were detained in a prison not for any crime that they had committed, but simply to procure or insure their attendance as witnesses, they ought not to be subjected to solitary confinement; and he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland would incur the responsibility of saying that he would not avoid such a state of things even if he could. He would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce an Amendment similar to that proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon); if the right hon. Gentleman did so he would make a most valuable concession. The Government must know that he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had no intention to embarrass them or to obstruct the progress of the Bill. He had given his support to the Bill so far in the interests of Ireland; but his natural instincts prompted him to support the present Amendment.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would just like to remark, with regard to the observation made by the Solicitor General for Ireland as to his not having a copy of the prison regulations at hand, that there was a limit to the amount of material that the Members of the Government could come down to the House provided with. It must be remembered that this Amendment was not on the Paper; but it had been placed in the hands of the Chairman in a manner quite unexpected. That was a sufficient defence for his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Porter). Now, with regard to the
  594
  speech which had just been made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and the other speeches spoken with equal earnestness and with very great conviction. In dealing with a Bill of this sort, he (Mr. Trevelyan) came to the conclusion that the Government ought never to yield any point of principle; and it appeared to him to be an absolute point of principle that all persons who were detained for safe custody, and not because they were guilty of crime or suspected of crime, should be treated in one and the same manner. His hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) spoke warmly and eloquently about the suffering which these witnesses would endure; but he must remind his hon. Friend that for 30 years he (Mr. Cowen) had continued silent while witnesses, who had refused to enter into recognizances, were enduring the same sufferings under the Petty Sessions Act; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) could not see why witnesses who were detained under the very grave circumstances of murder and other serious crimes should be treated more leniently than those detained under the Petty Sessions Act for refusing to enter into recognizances. Then, again, there was the case of prisoners of whom the Committee had heard so much, and to whom the Committee had paid so much attention—prisoners who were in custody in default of bail. His general view of the whole matter was that the time had clearly arrived when the treatment of all prisoners in Ireland of this class should be closely looked into. He did not think that up to the present the Irish Government had given Parliament any reason to think that they were desirous to inflict upon any prisoners any greater suffering and inconvenience than was necessary in the public interest. He could assure the Committee that when this Bill became law, a careful inquiry should be made into the manner in which all the persons detained under the clause should be treated, and this could well be done, both on the ground of humanity and on that of public expediency; but on the ground of principle the Government could not accept the present Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the question of the treatment of men imprisoned in default of bail had been for a considerable time under the attention of the Irish Government, and the points of hardship

  595
  had been pointed out from time to time in that House. He, therefore, had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), assisted by the Gentlemen who had been in the Irish Office before him, would by now have been able to have shaped his mind, so as to have made some distinct declaration with regard to the two particular points of hardship relating to the treatment of untried prisoners which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had brought before the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, in the opinion of the Government, all prisoners who were held for safe custody should be treated in the same way. But, as a matter of fact, they were not treated in the same way; and it was because the Irish Members wished that the persons who might be imprisoned under the present clause should be treated as persons held for safe custody under the Coercion Act that this Amendment had been proposed. As had been pointed out by the Chief Secretary, unless an alteration was introduced either in the rules made by the Prisons Board under the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, or under the Prisons Act of 1877; unless they introduced an addition to the law so as to govern the case of this new clause, men would, under the present system, probably be arrested under this Act, and treated as untried prisoners. Now, the treatment of untried prisoners had been very fully detailed by his hon. Friends (Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly), who had had an opportunity of seeing what that treatment was; and he (Mr. Parnell) would add that he thought the treatment of untried prisoners was harsh in the extreme. This partly arose from two causes—firstly, the defects in the rules themselves; and, secondly, the bad spirit in which the rules were carried out by the prison authorities. In passing, he wished to say this remark did not apply to the way in which the rules were carried out with regard to the prisoners under the Coercion Act of last year. With very few exceptions—with the exception of Limerick Prison and some of the prisons just at the time they were converted into gaols for "suspects"—no fault was to be found with the way the rules were carried out. He did, however, find fault with the spirit in which the prison rules were carried out by Governors
  596
  under Section B of the Act of 1877. He was quite sure the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would look into the matter with the desire of altering the rules if possible, and giving some advice to the prison authorities with regard to the spirit in which they administered the rules. He (Mr. Parnell) would like to hear a little more of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman himself with regard to the two points which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). That hon. Member had brought before the right hon. Gentleman the two principal causes of complaint. The first was that the prisoners were not allowed association, and this was universal. He knew of no case in which untried prisoners in any gaol in Ireland had ever been allowed association with any other untried prisoner; but he did know it was the common practice to oblige such prisoners to walk round the yard with two paces between each prisoner, and to prohibit them from exchanging any words with one another. The second point was with regard to the question of confinement in cells 22 hours out of the 24. He (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends contended that these provisions were not in accordance with the spirit of the section of the Act of 1877—the 13th section of the Irish Act, and the 39th section of the English Act. In referring to this matter he wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to ask the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) why he had not done something for the untried prisoners during the last 30 years. If he remembered rightly, the hon. Member for Newcastle took a very distinguished part in the debate on the Prisons Act of 1877. The Act of 1877 was passed when the Conservative Government were in Office, and the result of the discussion which took place when the Bill was passing through the House was that the then Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) framed the very fair section which had been alluded to, and it was passed into law. Under that section certain rules had been made. The section said—
  "Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference shall be made between the treatment of persons unconvicted of crime and in law presumably innocent during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of prisoners who have been convicted of crime during the period of their deten-

  597
  tion in prison for the purpose of punishment, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference, there shall be in force, in every place in which prisoners are confined for safe custody only, special rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive."
  Well, now, to confine a man in his cell for 22 hours out of the 24 was to make his confinement as oppressive as possible. He believed that the same period for recreation was allowed to convicted prisoners. Indeed, a great deal more time was given, insomuch as work was recreation to a prisoner. It was not asked that prisoners should associate promiscuously with one another; but it was considered right and proper that a distinction should be made between convicted and untried prisoners. The Irish Members submitted that every untried prisoner should have the right of association with other untried prisoners where it could possibly occur. At present such association was not allowed at all. They would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman something more as to the two points which were now raised.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONpressed on the Chief Secretary the policy of making some concession with regard to this matter. This was a matter both of principle and of policy. The men who were imprisoned under this clause would not be imprisoned even on the charge of being suspected of crime. One of the reasons and excuses for the clause was that it would tend to meet the present extraordinary condition of Ireland. The Government supposed that in certain parts of that country such a state of terrorism existed as to prevent a large number of persons coming forward to give evidence. These persons were principally of the poorer classes, and it seemed to him very questionable whether it was just, or in accordance with the interests of public policy, that these persons should be treated in precisely the same manner as persons suspected of crime or actual criminals. It struck him the Government were running a great risk in not making this concession, which would not weaken the real purpose or efficiency of the Bill, of needlessly irritating the Irish people, and prejudicing the practical application of this clause in the Bill. Granted that it is necessary to detain witnesses in custody, do not let us make these poor persons, by the treatment they receive
  598
  in prison, feel themselves identified with criminals, and thereby, instead of feeling estranged, actually perverted, by a sense of injustice, into sympathy with crime. He sincerely wished his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would be able to assure the Committee that he would agree to some Amendment in something like these words—
  "Provided always, That prisoners committed to prison under this section should be treated under such rules as the Lord Lieutenant may make from time to time."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had not heard a single valid argument advanced against the Amendment. The noble Viscount had very properly pointed out that the persons it was desired to protect by this Amendment were witnesses for the Crown, against whom the information had been laid that they were likely to abscond. From whom would such information really come? In nine cases out of ten it would be supplied by the witnesses themselves, who would say to someone or other—"Really, sir, you cannot depend upon me, because I am afraid of facing the country, and I would like to get away." Surely, the Government did not wish to treat such persons as if they were actually guilty of crime? The manner in which they were treated was directly contrary to the spirit of the Act of 1870 and to the rule read by the Solicitor General for Ireland. The simplest way would be for the Government to accept the principle of the Amendment, which he regarded as a perfectly fair one.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not suppose that he could satisfy the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who appeared to express the opinions of a good many hon. Members. The Government could not accept any Amendment to this clause, and they were convinced, as a matter of principle, that it was necessary to inquire into the treatment, not of the people alluded to in this clause, but they would consider it necessary to satisfy themselves that the persons in custody were not exposed to greater inconvenience than was necessary for their detention. He cordially acquiesced in the enlargement of the hours of recreation which took place in the case of persons confined in default of bail; and upon that point, so long as they were securely confined and unable to break from custody, he should only

  599
  be too glad for them to have an opportunity in any possible way of mitigating their position, consistently with the discipline of the gaol and the reasonable economical management of the gaol; and by those words he did not mean that he should strain either of those two conditions. As to solitary confinement, the prohibition to speak to other prisoners was a matter to be carefully watched. It was true that persons imprisoned under this clause might possibly be confined for a long time, and he could assure the Committee that there was no one with whom their position weighed more than with himself.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not understand why the Chief Secretary did not accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman started with the principle that when they were discussing the question of A being ill-treated he ought not to concede anything in regard to B. What hon. Members wanted was, not only an assurance, but something actually inserted in the Bill to prevent any ill-treatment of prisoners; and, surely, it was not too much to ask when witnesses, who had committed no crime, were to be imprisoned, that those people should not be treated worse than the "suspects" were under the Coercion Act of last year. That was all that was asked, and it was no use wasting hour after hour discussing that point; but the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends might accept the Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, with every desire and willingness to credit the Chief Secretary with good intentions, he should prefer to see those good intentions in the Bill. The Chief Secretary might be of a hopeful and sanguine nature, and there were such things as accidents in politics, and there might be a Chief Secretary less distinguished for humanitarian feelings within less than six weeks. Why should there not be some words placed in the Bill which would insure the Irishmen suspected of the new Liberal crime of evidence obtaining something like humane treatment? The Chief Secretary said every consideration would be shown to the suspected witnesses that was at all in conformity with the discipline of the gaol; but the same thing was said month after month under the regrettable régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and un-
  600
  less there was some provision in the Bill the discipline of the gaol might be made use of against witnesses who were suspected by the Government of not being willing to furnish the precise evidence they desired. If the gaol was simply to be used as a place of safe detention, why should the Government not put into the clause a guarantee against the gaols being used as places for vindictive purposes? Notwithstanding his presence in that House for some years, he had still enough of the prejudices natural to a freedom-loving man to make him rebel against these continual attempts to put personal assurance in the place of law and Constitution. During the Government of the Conservative Party the taunt of personal government was continually on the lips of Liberal Leaders; but now-a-days, whether for big grievances or little grievances, for great considerations or small considerations, the only reply that could be got from the Government was some new variety of that stale personal government. Did the Premier adopt the declaration of his Chief Secretary that the gaols were only to be used as places of safe detention, and that every liberty and comfort would be granted to imprisoned witnesses that was compatible with their safe keeping? Why did not the Prime Minister insist upon a provision to this effect being put into the Bill? He did not like what seemed to him to be an intention of the Government to make use of this clause, like so many other clauses, as a sort of electioneering inducement to the Irish Party to keep the Liberals in Office. The attitude adopted by the Chief Secretary, doubtless with the authority of the Prime Minister, was substantially this—they declined to introduce into the Bill this Amendment, which they acknowledged to be requisite and humane; but they promised that as long as there was a Liberal Chief Secretary in Ireland they would carry out the provisions of the Bill with the greatest humanity. That was an unworthy attitude for any Government to take in the House of Commons. If the Government meant that this Bill should be just, and that the provisions of the Bill should be susceptible of just application, no matter what Government was in power, then they should so cast the terms of the Bill as to safeguard all the liberties of the subject, no matter whether the Premier

  601
  was in the ranks of Liberals or of Conservatives. This continual claim of Liberal statesmen to allow objectionable provisions to be passed without the introduction of necessary Amendments, because so long as the Liberal Party was in power, the good-will of Liberal administrators in Ireland would make up for the deficiencies of the Bill was utterly unworthy either of England or Ireland. If the Government meant to have this provision for the detention of suspected witnesses simply for their safe keeping until the day of trial, they should put words to that effect into the Bill. Let them insure to the imprisoned witnesses all the comfort and liberty compatible with their safe keeping; but let them not insinuate, or hint, or suggest by roundabout methods that the true safeguard and the ægis of such liberties as Liberalism had left consisted in the maintenance of the Liberal Ministry. Party questions apart, he altogether rejected, on mere principles of common prudence, the acceptance of any such decision. The position of the Liberal Minister was in the highest degree dubious; and for that reason, if for no other, the Irish Party had a right to do all in their power to secure that provisions should be introduced to guard against the misuse of this Bill, no matter who might be the Party in Downing Street before many months were over.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, if his hon. Friends about him had no objection, he should be disposed for the present to accept the offer of the Chief Secretary. He shared the feelings of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that personal assurances were not equivalent to a clause; but, for the present, he thought the best thing to do was to accept the assurance of the Chief Secretary, as that assurance was given with the tacit concurrence of the Premier, the Home Secretary, and other Members of the Government. The Chief Secretary had expressed his disposition, on the two points of association and solitary confinement, to do everything that could be done consistently with safe custody. If that promise was honestly kept it would remove much of the objection to this clause. As to the food, of course he knew that prisoners would have the right to buy food outside the prison; but many of those prisoners would be very poor and unable to provide food for
  602
  themselves, and he respectfully asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether it would be possible to make the food of suspected witnesses as good as that of the "suspects" imprisoned under the Coercion Act. He would also ask the Chief Secretary to keep these two principles in view—that safe custody under this Act should mean nothing more under this Act than it did under the Coercion Act; and with regard to the remark that prisoners would be scattered in different prisons, the Government should limit the number of prisons.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not intend to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, considering that the Mover of the Amendment had expressed himself satisfied with the assurance of the Liberal Administration. But having spoken against it, and not being willing to accept that assurance, he should insist on enjoying the pleasure of seeing the Government negative the Amendment.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was not correct to say that he was satisfied with the assurance; but as between two things he regarded the assurance as better than a barren opposition.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Government had not given any answer to the question respecting food, and he would like to hear a word or two on that subject.
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that the arrangements with regard to food would be guided by the same principles as those he had laid down in regard to general treatment. With regard to the prisoners being scattered, they would now come under the purview of the Prison Board and of the Lord Lieutenant and himself.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  DR. COMMINS DR. COMMINS moved that the clause be omitted. The only Amendment adopted by the Government was that prisoners should have a copy of the information against them. Much good that would do them! The Amendment was not worth the paper it was written upon; but no other Amendment had been adopted. There had been some assurance given that steps should be taken to relax the prison rules in regard

  603
  to the persons committed under this clause, and he was not at all surprised at that; and if the Government expected to get any evidence from a witness; if they expected to get any voluntary evidence; if they expected the evidence not to be given in a way so as to do the least possible good, they would go a great deal further than the same assurance in relaxing the rules. Granted that something was done to make the condition of the prisoners tolerable while they were confined, what did this clause provide? He still adhered to his objection to it, on the ground that it gave a power of inflicting almost indefinite imprisonment to the magistrates. It was argued that no such power was granted; but there was nothing in the section to prevent a magistrate summoning a man, and those who argued in that way must be unacquainted with the practice of the Courts. That sort of thing constantly happened; and he was astonished to hear the Attorney General say it was never done. If he had attended Petty Sessions Courts he would have seen it done thousands of times, so that there was a power to commit and recommit a prisoner to gaol. Who would be the people against whom this power would be exercised? According to Dr. Hancock's Reports, 50,000 men came from the West of Ireland into Scotland and England at certain times of the year; 14,000 passed through Manchester yesterday, and 10,000 through Chester. They were of necessity travelling to Scotland and England, and it was in the very localities from which they came that the crimes had been committed, and where it was supposed that the people knew something about the crimes, and would be able to identify those suspected. People who intended to come to England and Scotland might be, and would be, detained if they ventured to leave their country to earn a living, according to the ordinary practice. Was it tolerable that such power should be placed in the hands of magistrates? That power might be checked by the supervision of the Judges; but that plan was not adopted, and no Amendment to prevent this exercise of the power had been accepted. The power was left in the hands of irresponsible police and magistrates, and it might be used to gratify private malignity, or to cause annoyance, or even for the purpose of subornation
  604
  and manufacture of evidence. Suppose that a man happened to mention that he had seen some person in a neighbourhood where a crime had been committed, and that he would be able to identify the person again, there might be some active person who might suppose he could get a good deal more out of that man if he had him under his control, and so he might apply for a summons against him. Corrupt evidence might be given by a man of no conscience or character, and this clause might be used for imprisoning innocent people on the assumption that they knew something about the crime. Getting up evidence in that way was one of the most disgraceful episodes of the Rebellion of 1798, when men were brought forward as informers, having been crammed and instructed in deliberate perjury to swear falsely against men they had never seen before. He did not suppose any Member of the Government would sanction such a perversion of the Act; but the Government was in the hands of officials in whom no confidence whatever could be placed. Therefore he pressed this Amendment, on the ground that the clause might be used to inflict oppression on innocent persons or to manufacture evidence. The greatest objection to the clause was this—it was an admitted and unfortunate fact that in Ireland one of the reasons why it was difficult to get evidence and to get juries to convict was the entire distrust which the people felt in the Government in all its works; in all its magistrates and officials, from the highest to the lowest. The people distrusted them, and looked for neither justice nor fair play, and that feeling prevented them giving assistance to the police, because they feared that their evidence might be used to destroy innocent people. This clause would increase that distrust and irritation of the people against the law and their disinclination to assist the Government; and it would widen that breach between them and the Government which had been the cause of the existing state of things in Ireland. He wished to see that breach closed, and the Government receiving the confidence of the people. But a section such as this, which really increased the irresponsible power of persons who already had too much power, was only doing mischief and making the condition of the country worse than it was before.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONpointed out that these depositions might be taken behind the back of the person concerned; and he wished to propose a provision that magistrates should not act until notice had been given to the person who might be inculpated that such proceedings were to be taken. It might be that the man had a good excuse; but, under this clause, he would have no opportunity of representing that excuse. The Government, however, would be able to arrest him, and that was a proceeding which, he was sure, would not be approved of by the Committee.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he looked upon this clause as most peculiarly affecting labouring men who could not be in the slightest degree suspected of any crime. No limitation was fixed as to the time during which the recognizances would run; but at present the witness was bound to attend at the trial on the day fixed, and the longest time that could elapse in the case of a capital offence was three or four months. By this clause, however, a witness, who might not even be a material witness with reference to the crime for which a person had been arrested, might be bound over, not to appear within any certain time, but when called upon. Suppose an Irish labourer and his family received a sum of money from relatives or friends in America, as Irish labourers constantly did, in order that they might go out to America, some person might go to a magistrate and say the man who had received the money had some evidence to give, and that Irish labourer and his family might be kept in Ireland for an indefinite period. This Bill was to continue for three years, and, according to the 14th clause, taken in connection with the 13th, any person might be bound over if an offence had been committed, although no person might be charged merely upon a policeman's saying he was going to abscond, or was going to England to reap the harvest, or had received the money to go to America in order to earn a better living than he could at home. There was not in the Bill a more monstrous clause than this, and he believed it would keep up against the present Government that feeling of hostility towards them; and, therefore, he was not disposed to vote against it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 37: Majority 156.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair 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.
  Clause 15 (Additional constabulary force).
  DR. COMMINSsaid, as the Committee were aware, this clause gave power to the Lord Lieutenant, under certain circumstances, to increase to any extent the Constabulary Force in any district. He was about to move an Amendment which was intended to act as a check to the exercise of that power, and which declared that it should only be exercised on a Memorial being signed by the majority of the magistrates of any district to the effect that such increased Constabulary Force was necessary. The reason for his Amendment was very obvious. The Constabulary, as was well known, were in great part paid by the cesspayers of the county and also of the district, and as, in making the county cess, the estimate for the Constabulary was made according to the district of the county in which the Constabulary were located, a particular district might be absolutely ruined by having a large extra number of Constabulary stationed within it—that was to say, by sending into a small district, containing, perhaps, only 500 ratepayers, a police force of 200 or 300 extra men. Now, his proposal was to check this system of taxation without representation; to limit the power which the Lord Lieutenant was practically given in this sub-section of imposing a pecuniary mulct of indefinite amount upon a district; that he should be restrained from putting this power into execution until the magistrates of the district, who were intrusted with the preservation of peace and order, had made a requisition for an additional police force. It would not be necessary for him to detain the Committee at any length in supporting the Amendment. The Committee would

  607
  perceive that the magistrates would not have a large interest in keeping the rate down, or in refraining from advising the Lord Lieutenant whenever it might he necessary to have an additional police force in their district, because they only paid on the land in their own occupation, and on the farms of such of their tenants as had contracted themselves out of the provisions of the Act of 1870. Still, it was to be supposed they would take care that no additional rate was made unless the peace and order of the district required it. He assumed they would have a certain amount of sympathy with the other cesspayers, and would be always willing to protect them from increased taxation, except in the event of it becoming necessary to increase the Constabulary force in their district. He did not see that any objection could be made to giving the initiative in this matter to the magistrates, who alone could know whether the condition of the district with regard to crime would warrant an additional police force being stationed there. Under any circumstances it would be that Reports would come from them to the Lord Lieutenant as to whether it was wanted or not; and he had no doubt that, in the ordinary course of things, it would be at their suggestion that the Lord Lieutenant would make this increase of Constabulary. Now, he wanted that suggestion to be made openly, honestly, and above-board. There was no safeguard equal to the safeguard of publicity, and therefore he saw no reason why there should not be publicity with regard to this increase of the Constabulary force. This would afford the best guarantee that they would charge themselves with the preservation of the peace, and it would at the same time insure that they would not unnecessarily advise what would undoubtedly cause a large amount of annoyance to the people of the district. He said annoyance because it was notorious that the police interfered with the people in every act of life; and that circumstance would in itself be sufficient to cause considerable dissatisfaction in the district where it took place, quite apart from the fact that their presence there would be a source of heavy expense. Under these circumstances he trusted the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, which he now begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 24, after the word "when," to insert the words "upon a memorial signed by a majority of the magistrates in any district."—(Dr. Commins.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was afraid that the reasons which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given for this Amendment were the very reasons which rendered it impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept it. The hon. and learned Member stated that the Amendment was intended as a check upon the exercise of the powers proposed to be given to the Lord Lieutenant by this clause; but he (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion that there were no powers in the Bill more useful, or which it was more desirable should be exercised without the slightest check, than the powers in question. The great desire with regard to Ireland was that a sentiment hostile to crime should exist there, and it was therefore necessary to create a sentiment of hostility to crime in those districts where it was absent. The object of this clause was to create an interest, and a pecuniary interest, in Ireland hostile to crime. Now the person who would exercise the power in this clause was the Lord Lieutenant, who would act on such information, from whatever quarter it might come, which led him to believe that a particular district required an additional police force for the preservation of life and property within it. But the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon proposed that this power should not be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant unless upon a Memorial signed by a majority of the magistrates of the district, and in support of that proposal he argued that the magistrates would have a pecuniary interest hostile to the action of the clause. As it was difficult to conceive anything more opposed than this to the intention of the clause from the Government point of view, he was unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, it was impossible to understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in any other sense than as an attempt to imbue the mind of the Committee with the idea that the parties proposed by the Amendment to be intrusted

  609
  with the initiative in this matter were not in sentiment hostile to crime, but were, as a matter of fact, in sympathy with it. To bring forward an argument of that kind was to show the utter ignorance of the Home Secretary on matters connected with the present state of Ireland. One of his objections to the magistrates in Ireland having a voice in this initiative was that they had a pecuniary interest hostile to the action of the clause. But was the right hon. and learned Gentleman serious in putting forward that argument?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was not I who put forward the argument. It was used by the hon. and learned Member in support of his Amendment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had used it by way of innuendo. Now, nothing more devoid of common sense or common knowledge of Ireland could be conceived. There was a Member of that House who had property in his county from which he derived an income of £5,000 or £6,000 a-year, and the absurdity of this statement with regard to the magistrates would be apparent when it was known that on account of that property he would not be taxed to the amount of 10 s. a-year in respect of the police; and this was due to the fact that the county cess was levied upon the occupiers, and not in any degree upon the landlords. If the magistrates of the district were so cowardly as to be afraid to initiate the proceedings to which the clause applied, when it was necessary for the preservation of peace that they should do so, it would be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to remove them from the Commission of the Peace. He should have thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have accepted the Amendment at once, with, perhaps, the addition of words to the effect that the Memorial signed by the magistrates should not be made public in order that they might not be held up to public opinion for having made known to the Lord Lieutenant that an additional Constabulary force was necessary in their districts.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary as to the importance of this clause, and at the same time he hoped the farmers in Ireland would make strong representations to the county Members, begging them to give
  610
  the clause very close attention, because its effects would be felt in Ireland for years to come. He did not ask the county Members to oppose the clause, but to see that in the matter of the cost of additional police the farmers had fair play. He thought the particular Amendment before the Committee was open to some objection, because the clause must be read by the light of the sub-section of it, and as yet the mode in which the tax had to be levied had not been determined. As the clause stood, the tax would be levied solely on the occupiers; but there were two Amendments on the Paper for the purpose of regulating its incidence. It would be a great mistake to suppose that all the magistrates were not occupiers. Many of them were so, although, of course, the great bulk of the property was held by landlords who paid nothing to the rates. He thought the proposal that the magistrates should share the responsibility in this matter with the Lord Lieutenant was open to some objection. He would have been willing to have given the initiative over to the magistrates, if the money came out of the poor rates, because then they would only exercise it when it was absolutely necessary. But, as the matter stood, he thought it better that the Amendment should not be pressed to a division at that stage, in order they might see whether the cost of the additional police was to fall solely on the occupiers; because, if that were the case, he should prefer the Bill as it stood. He thought a fair adjustment would be that the owners should pay one half of the tax, and the occupiers the other half; and when that matter was satisfactorily settled he should regard the clause as a useful one. For the reasons given he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped the Government were going to take up a proper position with regard to this clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon would give the magistrates a pecuniary interest in preventing the operation of the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That was the argument of the Mover of the Amendment, and I said that if it were true, it was an argument against the Amendment rather than for it.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment proceeded on the assumption that the occupiers only paid the rate. The complaint was that the Government had placed the entire amount on the occupiers, and left the landlords to go scot-free.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that with regard to England and Ireland different Constitutional theories were adopted in that House. It had passed into the commonplaces of politics to say that there should he no taxation in England without representation—that was to say, that those who had to pay a tax should have some voice in the imposition of it. In dealing with Ireland, this axiom was systematically ignored; but the object of the Amendment was to prevent the principle being entirely lost sight of in the present instance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the very object of the clause was to give unlimited power to the Lord Lieutenant. According to the theory of politics in this country, as he had learned it, there should be no arbitrary Executive power exercised by any one person. But the object of the Government from the beginning to the end was to give arbitrary and irresponsible power to someone in Ireland, whether in the case of the police, the magistracy, or the Lord Lieutenant. That was the view of these great apostles of liberty for opposing which, in that House, Irish Members were to be rebuked in the sight of the whole world. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman's theory of human nature was still more extraordinary than his theory of liberty. It was that, by giving the people of a district an interest against the commission of crime, their sympathies would be opposed to its commission, and they would do something to prevent it. Why, no argument had been more often repeated in that House than the argument that the crimes occurring in Ireland were not done by people resident in the district where they were committed. What, then, became of the argument just put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite? If the people of the district had anything to do with the crime committed there—if they promoted it, and shielded the criminals, then there might be something in the argument. But it was the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the crime was
  612
  committed by strangers to the district; that the people of the district were free from complicity in it; and that was the foundation of the provisions of this, as well as the Coercion Acts of former times. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was some amount of sympathy with crime in certain parts of Ireland, and that it was necessary to create a sympathy of an opposite kind. To that he replied that the people of Ireland understood what was impartial justice and what was retributive justice, and, further, that there was no people in the world who resented more the imposition of unjust and misplaced punishment. This was a clause which placed a mulct on the people for crimes committed in their district of which they were entirely innocent.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. and learned Member was discussing the clause, and not the Amendment before the Committee.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he was discussing the clause in relation to the Amendment. He said it was avowedly penal in its object. It imposed a fine upon persons most of whom must be innocent, and all of whom might be innocent. The probable effect of all this would be that the clause would be resented; that the Government who put it in motion would be detested, and that a sympathy would be created for the people who committed crime in Ireland.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, Irish Members had no other object than to improve the Bill wherever it was possible. But with regard to this Amendment, he thought the power of the clause had better be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant than by the magistrates. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persevere with his proposal.
  MR. SYNANsaid, they had been really discussing the next clause on the Amendment before the Committee. If it were the case that the magistrates in Ireland were the representatives of the taxpayers, that would go some way in support of the Amendment, but not far enough. If the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) were accepted, then the magistrates of Ireland, like the occupiers, would be interested in preventing the introduction of additional police in their district if there were no necessity for it. He appealed to the hon. and

  613
  learned Member for Roscommon to postpone his Amendment until the Report, and then, if the Amendments referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway were accepted in the meantime, there would be a strong argument in its favour. As they were placed, the matter was really being argued in the dark. From his own knowledge of the country, he did not think, in the present state of things, the magistrates ought to be intrusted with the power claimed for them, because they would be able to get additional police whenever they applied for them, and at the same time get off scot-free in the matter of paying for them.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to misapprehend the real point of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon. It would appear from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Limerick that the object of the Amendment was to substitute the discretion of the magistrates for that of the Lord Lieutenant. But that was not so. It was simply proposed that the discretion should be exercised first by the magistrates and secondly by the Lord Lieutenant. The discretion of the Lord Lieutenant would remain precisely where it was if the Amendment were adopted, and would operate as a guard just as much if the clause were amended as if it remained in its present form.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the Home Secretary seemed to appreciate his Amendment better than his hon. Friend's, who asked him to withdraw it, and he was inclined to take his opinion in preference.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he thought the Amendment was right in principle, and, with a slight alteration in the words used, would provide a useful check upon the exercise of the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant; and he could not understand upon what principle it was opposed by Her Majesty's Government, except it was upon the one principle of ignoring all Irish opinion with regard to Irish affairs. The Government had, unfortunately, acted upon that principle throughout the entire progress of the Bill, and they seemed quite prepared to continue that policy. He asked who were better calculated to give information to the Lord Lieutenant upon a matter of this kind than the magis-
  614
  trates, who were dwellers in the district and were thoroughly acquainted with the people there? No persons could know better than they whether there was reason or not for sending an additional police force into their districts. It appeared to him that it should not be left to the arbitrary will of the Lord Lieutenant that this crushing tax, incident to the employment of those additional police, should be imposed on the district. The initiative should be intrusted to the magistrates. The clause could easily be so worded that a discretionary power should be left in the Lord Lieutenant to act or not, as he thought right, on the representation of the magistrates.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there should be no misunderstanding about this Amendment, and the effect it would have upon the clause were it adopted. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) who said that it would place an absolute veto in the hands of the magistrates. Anyone capable of reading the language of an Act of Parliament, or who regarded the grammatical construction of the clause as it would be if the Amendment were adopted, must see that the Amendment made a Memorial, to be signed by the magistrates, a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of the clause by the Lord Lieutenant. That being so, the arguments of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee were beside the mark. The question was, were the magistrates to be the persons who were to have the initiative, and so prevent the clause coming into operation?
  MR. MARUMsaid, he had attended lately two meetings of magistrates in different counties held by public requisition, the object of them being to determine whether or not there should be an additional police force in the county; and he was prepared to admit that the power of the magistrates, claimed by the Amendment, was in the nature of a veto, because in the cases referred to, without the sanction of the magistrates, the County Inspector was not warranted in increasing the number of the Constabulary. Therefore, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon had placed a perfectly legitimate Amendment before the Committee. He had an Amendment on the Paper to the

  615
  effect that the Grand Juries should be the organs of taxation, and he certainly preferred that mode of dealing with the matter to that proposed by the clause; but, without pursuing that question, he repeated that his hon. Friend's Amendment was most reasonable, and ought to receive the favourable attention of the Government.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he had great respect for the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He had correctly stated the true question involved in the Amendment, but had certainly given no reason against its adoption. Were the Committee to assume that the Irish magistrates, so highly extolled at times by the Government, would be on the side of disorder, and improperly prevent the clause coming into operation? Was well-informed local opinion to be of no weight in Ireland? Who would guide the discretion of a Lord Lieutenant who came to that country ignorant of Irish affairs? Probably he would have to act upon the advice of those wholly unacquainted with the country. For anything he knew to the contrary, the Home Secretary himself, who knew nothing of Ireland, who had never been there, and who, possibly, if subjected to examination, could not name the Irish counties, might appear in the character of adviser to the Lord Lieutenant. As the clause stood, its powers were to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant without the slightest local control, and in nowise guided by Irish opinion, being brought to bear upon him; and, if for that reason alone, he should support the Amendment as far as it went, with the knowledge that if it were adopted it would be easy for the Committee afterwards to regulate the remainder of the clause.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had misapprehended the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon. What did the clause say in its present form?—
  "When it appears to the Lord Lieutenant, from time to time, that by reason of the existence or apprehension of crime and outrage in any district, the numbers of constabulary ordinarily employed in such district are not sufficient, he may order additional constabulary to be employed in such district."
  That was to say, that the decision in
  616
  this matter was left to the undivided will of the Lord Lieutenant, who, as the hon. Member for Kilkenny stated, knew nothing about the matter. The Lord Lieutenant would be assisted probably by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, he believed, also knew nothing at all about Ireland until his recent appointment to Office; and these two Gentlemen were to decide, upon the whisper, perhaps, of some particular individual, whether or not a certain district in Ireland was to be heavily taxed. He contended that if it were known that the addition to the Constabulary force in the district would not be made without the magistrates first memorialized the Lord Lieutenant, a certain amount of public opinion would be brought to bear upon the magistrates, and this would make their decision something more or less of an honest character. The Home Secretary had truly said that this proposal constituted a veto upon the action of the Lord Lieutenant; but it would operate to the extent of enabling him to act only upon the representation of the magistrates, although, as the hon. Member for Limerick had pointed out, the Lord Lieutenant would not be bound to send the additional police force, even if the magistrates recommended it, in which case he would probably act upon evidence or official information derived from other quarters. He was quite unable to see why the Government objected to this Amendment, which, were they to adopt it, would only amount to an expression of confidence on their part in the local magistrates, who, however, he was bound to say, did not possess the confidence of the Irish people.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, this question lay in a nutshell. Either the Lord Lieutenant would issue his mandate to send additional police without the consent of the magistrates or with it. He would like to know whether it was the intention of the Government that, if the majority of the magistrates were against having an additional posse of police, the police would, nevertheless, be billeted on the district?
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he hoped the Government would not give way on the question before the Committee. This discretion was not desired by the Irish magistrates, and the exercise of it would, in his opinion, be most unpopular in Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken was a fair type of the Irish magistrates, who were always ready to evade their duty.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 78: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 181.)
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he proposed to move the omission of words in this clause which allowed the Lord Lieutenant to order an additional police force to any district upon the mere apprehension of crime being committed there. The first portion of the clause ran thus—
  "When it appears to the Lord Lieutenant, from time to time, that by reason of the existence or apprehension of crime and outrage in any district, the numbers of the constabulary ordinarily employed in such district are not sufficient, he may order additional constabulary to be employed in such district, and for that purpose may, from time to time, add to the Royal Irish Constabulary such officers and men (if any) as he thinks necessary."
  It would be apparent to the Committee that the object of his Amendment was to make the actual existence of crime in a district precedent to the exercise of the authority conferred by the clause. "Apprehension" was a very vague term. It might be well-founded or ill-founded; to-day it might appear to be founded on fact, and to-morrow to be without a fragment of truth to justify it. When the Committee considered the ruinous consequences which would follow the exercise of this power, he believed they would agree that it ought not to be exercised except on the most clear and undeniable facts. By virtue of this clause the Lord Lieutenant could add to the number of the Constabulary employed in a district; he could spread them over a country or concentrate them upon a townland, and moreover, for the purpose of the clause, he could add to the total strength of the Constabulary Force by enlisting therein new men and officers, which meant that the Constabulary Force was to be permanently strengthened, and that the additional force sent to the counties was likely to be saddled on them for a considerable time. Furthermore, the Lord Lieutenant might fix the limit of the area in which that charge was to be levied; he might make it a county or a townland, and he might exempt any landlord, or
  618
  agent, or bailiff, he pleased. The Lord Lieutenant might, in fact, limit the payment of the tax to even 10 or 12 families; he might send 100 extra policemen into a district where there were only a dozen families, and throw the whole burden of the support of those extra Constabulary upon that small number of families. He (Mr. Sexton) knew a case in County Sligo where 11 families had been called upon to support a body of extra police sent into the townland; and he knew that those families would have been brought to permanent ruin had it not been for voluntary assistance extended to them. What he objected to was that this might be a permanent or long-continued charge on the people at the mere discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. After the police had been sent into a district, it might turn out that the apprehension had been false; therefore, he hoped the Government would have no reason to resist this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 25, to leave out the words "or apprehension."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the only point in this Amendment was whether the powers of the clause were to be exercised on the actual commission of crime only, or on the commission of crime and on the apprehension of crime. He must object to the notion that the Lord Lieutenant would be actuated by any malignant desire to ruin particular families, or to introduce Constabulary where he did not think they were necessary. He assumed the Lord Lieutenant would act as anybody in a responsible position would act—namely, on the best information he had. The question was—was the employment of an additional force of policemen in a district to be postponed until crime had been committed, which, according to this Amendment, alone could justify it? That was not the view of the Government. He remembered it used to be the law in Scotland that a man could not be punished for the action of his dog until it had bitten somebody. That law was now altered, and it was time it should be, because no one could desire that a man's dog should bite an individual before the man was responsible for its

  619
  actions. What was the tendency of this Amendment? It was that no actual crime should have been committed in a district before the district was made liable in the way proposed in the clause. The Government wished to make the district responsible for the prospect, as well as for the commission, of crime, and they believed that in proposing such a thing they were proposing nothing unreasonable or unfair.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he might mention a particular case which occurred in the county he represented (Roscommon). He believed that that was one of the districts in which there had been no agrarian crime at any time. In spite of that, however, the Lord Lieutenant last winter sent down 50 police and military, and charged their expenses upon the people. There were not more than 60 voters in the whole place, so that there was one policeman to each family. How was the apprehension to be measured? Whose apprehension was it to be? By whose instructions and under whose direction, or on whose opinion, was the Lord Lieutenant to act? He would certainly like to hear that the quartering of police on the people would take place on something tangible, and not upon mere apprehension founded upon they knew not what.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the question was, whether the Lord Lieutenant was to act on the apprehension of crime or upon the existence of crime. The question naturally arose, what were the powers which the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise, and whether they were powers which should be exercised in view of the existence of crime. What he (Mr. Sexton) wanted was this—that unless there be actual crime existing extra police should not be charged upon the people. Apprehension of crime might be fairly dealt with by the ordinary powers of the Constabulary. What he was afraid of was that the powers of this clause would be brought into operation in so elaborate a manner, and the stay of the police would be so prolonged, and the burden on the district might be much in excess of what the apprehension would justify. He did not intend to convey that the Lord Lieutenant would act malignantly; but he could conceive that this clause would be brought into operation in consequence of want of thought. He knew a case where ruin was brought to several
  620
  families by reason of want of thought. The case he had already referred to was that in which 11 poor families were saddled with the sum of £100 for the maintenance of extra police, because, as it afterwards turned out, a man had come into the townland and bitten a bailiff's ear off.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought that where crime existed it would be fair for the Government to send an increased Constabulary force; but it would not be fair to charge the expenses upon the locality. It would be certainly very unjust to charge the expenses of that force upon the locality in case of apprehension of crime, because the apprehension might prove to be unfounded. Surely it was not contended that people should be heavily fined for an unfounded apprehension of crime; if they were so fined, they would have no remedy under the clause. If the Government had only apprehension of crime, let them send an increased Constabulary force at the public expense; but, unless the existence of crime in a locality were proved, unless the necessity for an extra force were demonstrated, he did not see why people of the locality should be visited by a heavy pecuniary fine. It was well known that there were such things as unreasonable apprehensions. The Committee well knew there had been unreasonable panics in this country and in every other country; unreasonable and groundless panics and apprehensions arose from time to time; they, however, passed away and no harm resulted. Great harm would be done to many poor districts in Ireland by unreasonable apprehensions. The people would have no remedy, the fine would be imposed upon them, and the Government would levy it by the aid of the Constabulary and military at their disposal. They would exact this pecuniary fine for which there was no justification or occasion. He was not going to admit that in any case it was a just principle—he believed it was not—to levy the cost of an extra police force upon a particular district. Whatever grounds there might be in the minds of some hon. Members for fining a district in which crime was prevalent, there was no just ground whatever for fining a district upon the ground of mere apprehension of crime, apprehension which, as a general rule, turned out to be totally unfounded. He wondered how

  621
  the Home Secretary could refuse this very fair and reasonable Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that this clause—and in speaking with regard to the present Amendment he should speak generally upon the clause, because he thought that the word "apprehension" must be taken in connection with the rest of the clause as well as other clauses which gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to grant compensation in cases of murder and maimings—was exceedingly well calculated to increase the difficulties of the Government in Ireland, and alienate people still further from the side of law and order in that country. He would like to give the Committee one or two practical examples of the way in which he thought this clause would be likely to work; in fact, they had reason to believe that the clause was already in operation in some of the districts. There was at present going on in Ireland a labourers' movement, which had not up to now assumed very large proportions, but which was likely to assume considerable proportions during the coming autumn and winter. A clause of this kind, by which fines were inflicted upon the ratepayers in a district in consequence of the apprehension of outrage, and in consequence of the actual commission of outrage, furnished an almost irresistible temptation to the non-ratepayers to commit outrage in cases where they thought an advantage might be reaped from them. The labourers in Ireland were not ratepayers. Suppose that in a certain district—and he felt that now he was speaking freely, because he knew that not very much of what was said in Committee was reported in Ireland—suppose the labourers in certain districts asked the farmers to give them an advance in wages, or a plot of ground with a cottage, as they were now doing, and suppose a certain number of farmers in a certain district refused to give that ground, and a certain number of other farmers agreed to give the ground. A clause of this kind would furnish an almost irresistible temptation to those persons who were not ratepayers, and who had nothing to fear from the action of this clause, to commit outrages or to create the apprehension of outrage, and give cause to the local Constabulary authorities to induce the Lord Lieutenant to send an extra police force, and in that
  622
  way put a fine on the farmers who refused to grant them their concessions. Without any strike of work whatever, a clause of this kind would give overwhelming power to the non-ratepayers in Ireland to serve their own ends in case dispute might arise between themselves and their employers. It was perfectly gratuitous to bring in clauses of this kind. They were founded upon the experience of Ireland at the end of last Session. They had never proved effectual, and they would not prove effectual now. He feared, owing to complications which had arisen in Ireland in connection with this labourers' movement, that such clauses might actually be taken advantage of by one section for the purpose of punishing another section.
  MR. METGEsaid, it was proposed to leave out the words "or apprehension," and, as he understood the argument of the Home Secretary, it was that this clause should be made use of to prevent crime, to employ an increased number of police, and thus prevent outrage and crime in any particular district. Last winter it pleased the magistrates in the county he represented (Meath) to apprehend crime to a very great extent. What was the consequence? A meeting of magistrates was called by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Some 50 or 60 magistrates attended, of whom he (Mr. Metge) happened to be one, and, with the exception of himself, the meeting was unanimous in favour of the employment of an extra police force in the county. He had the temerity to stand up and ask the County Inspector if he had any grounds to go upon for asking for this extra police force, which practically meant a fine on the ratepayers of the county, and he said he had not. He also asked if the county was in its normal state, if the County Inspector had any figures on which to go, and he said he had not. He (Mr. Metge) really pitied the County Inspector at the time, so lamentable was the position of this military ruler of the county. An extra police force, however, was sent down, and the consequence was that the rates of the county were now higher than they had ever been for years. What did those very same magistrates do on a subsequent occasion? Within one month of that meeting he (Mr. Metge) was opposed to his brother magistrates again. He opposed the granting of public-

  623
  house licences, but all the others voted for the licences, contrary to the advice of the parish priest and of the Protestant clergymen of the district.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. METGEsaid, he had no wish to transgress; but in the interests of the ratepayers he felt that the words "or apprehension" ought to be omitted from the clause. He wished to know whether the apprehension of crime upon which the Lord Lieutenant would proceed would, as a rule, be founded on better or more solid grounds than was the case in the county of Meath, where the people were now submitted to a heavy tax in consequence of the extra police force quartered upon them? If he thought that the retention of the words proposed to be left out would be effectual for the repression of crime, he would certainly not oppose them; but he knew the words would be absolutely ineffectual, and therefore he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that many of the objections might possibly be removed if the Home Secretary would consent to the insertion of some qualifying words; for instance, he thought it would be well if the clause were to read, "by reason of the existence or apprehension, founded upon townland information, of crime."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 30: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 182.)
  Amendment proposed, in page, 7, line 26, to leave out "numbers," and insert "number."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HEALYproposed to leave out the word "ordinarily," in line 26. The point of this Amendment was that the Lord Lieutenant made use of his proclamation to increase or decrease the number of Constabulary allowed him by the law. What he wanted was not that the practice of the Lord Lieutenant should be followed, but that the Statute which provided the police should be followed. He did not think it was asking too much of the Government that they should declare that no more Constabulary should be supplied in any dis-
  624
  trict than the ordinary number as at present provided by the law. It might happen that the number of ordinary Constabulary employed in any district might be 100, whereas the number provided by law would be 200; and what the Government proposed was, to throw the expense of 200 men upon an entire district by sending in an additional 100 men under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. Although the full complement of police in any district might be 200 men, and the Government only sent in 100, the district would be compelled to pay for the whole. That involved a very important question, and he hoped the Government would show a desire to deal frankly, not merely with the Committee, but with the country. The people of Ireland had a great objection to paying for more police than were supposed to be necessary; but under this clause the people would have no security upon that point. The people of Ireland did not manage the police as the people of England did, for the Irish Force was entirely in the hands of the Government, and, therefore, there ought to be words inserted in the Bill providing that the Government should send in no police over the complement ordinarily allowed by law, until that number had been worked up to its fullest extent.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 26, to leave out the word "ordinarily," and insert the words "at present by law authorised to be."—(Mr. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ordinarily' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this clause had been framed with this view—It assumed that a district required in ordinary times, apart from such disturbance as had unfortunately prevailed in some parts of Ireland for several years, a certain number of police. If in any particular district in the county the prevalence or the apprehension of crime required an additional force of police, it would be very unfair to charge that increase of police on the whole county, or that portion which might be entirely denuded of crime. The additional charge ought to fall on the particular district which necessitated that augmentation of the police force. That was the principle of the clause. The hon. Member said, supposing the

  625
  full complement was not made up, it should be made up, and then the charge would fall on the whole county, the greater part of which was interested in the matter. But suppose there was a deficiency to be made up, and one-fourth of the district only was disturbed, the remaining three-fourths being in the ordinary condition, it would be unfair that this additional force should be charged generally, and the whole county be compelled to pay for one-fourth of the county. That one-fourth, and that alone, ought to pay. The number of police ordinarily employed in such districts were not sufficient in the event of disturbance. He would take the case of a county ordinarily in an undisturbed state, and requiring only, say, four-fifths of the whole quota of the Constabulary; if one part of that district required an increase of Constabulary, whether it was up to its full complement or not, the charge must be put on the disturbed part of the district, and not on the whole county. That seemed to be a just principle, and was a strong ingredient in favour of the district not disturbed. From both points of view the Government must adhere to that principle, and could not accept the Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had an Amendment to line 27 which, he thought, raised this question more clearly, and he wished to know whether he would be able to put that Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Wexford's Amendment is rejected the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment cannot be put.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had no wish to stand in the way of the hon. and gallant Member, who understood the question better than he did, and he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, his Amendment raised the question in a much more definite form than the Amendment of his hon. Friend. To show how the present system operated, he would read an extract from a Report of a Committee which sat in 1872 upon the Constabulary Forces, chiefly with regard to pay and promotion. That Report stated that the expense of the Royal Irish Constabulary was now borne partly by the Consolidated Fund, and partly by local rates;
  626
  but the scale laid down in 1848 fixed the number of men assigned to each county in Ireland, the entire expense of which was thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and the cost of any number of Constabulary beyond the number which the county required was met partly by local rates. If his Amendment was not adopted, the Government could override the whole arrangement. It was settled in 1848 that each county should be made responsible for a certain number of men. If one part of a county was disturbed, the Constabulary were concentrated in that part of the county, and if the county required no more than 300 constables it paid; but if it required 320, then it was charged with the cost of the extra 20. The Home Secretary said he wished the district to be charged, and not the county, and his Amendment did not go against that view; but it was most unfair, in the case of a county which had only 280 men of the 300 to which it was entitled, to charge the county with 40 or 50 extra men. In past years questions and remonstrances upon the Constabulary were repeatedly addressed to the Government when the counties were being charged with extra Constabulary, although they had not got their full complement. The word "ordinarily" was exposed to a certain amount of question. It might mean what was laid down by the law, and that would imply the regulation number; but the Home Secretary took a different view. The result would be constant remonstrance and Petitions in the same way as before, and the matter would be a growing grievance in the minds of the people against the Government, who, they would say, were acting unfairly in requiring the counties which had not their full quota to pay for extra men. If the Amendment was passed, the Government would be able to charge the district; but they would first have to concentrate the men in the disturbed districts. He hoped the Government would adopt the Amendment, because there was great difficulty in regard to these Constabulary arrangements, and if they refused the Amendment, the people of Ireland would entertain bitter feelings against the Government which would not be easily allayed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 27, after the word "sufficient," to insert the words "and when the constabulary in the county of which the district forms part

  627
  are already up to the full establishment for that county."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)observed, with reference to the view put forward by the last speaker, that the county of Cork measured about 85 miles from east to west, and 50 from north to south, and if a district was disturbed—a remote district, say, 50 miles away—would, according to the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, have to pay for the police. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had adduced arguments in support of his Amendment which appeared to be rather contradictory. He had laid down the principle that because a county was a unit the Committee ought not to make any other unit, and so, if a disturbance took place in another part of the county, persons 50 miles distant would have to pay, because the county was a unit. He could not see the justice of that view. It had been stated that the theory of this clause was that if the ordinary force of Constabulary was sufficient to preserve peace in any particular district, then, if through an outbreak, or the apprehension of an outbreak of crime, additional constables were required, the innocent portions of the county should not be taxed; but that the guilty district requiring the additional police should pay for their cost. As a matter of abstract justice there could be nothing fairer than that. It appeared to him that the law at present was this. The entire Constabulary Force was a free Force, borne by the Consolidated Fund, and divided every five years among the counties of Ireland; and if, during five years, any force was not complete, it was only owing to an illness, death, or retirement. Except for that, every county had a force which was sufficient on all ordinary occasions to preserve the peace. The force was again divided, not by law, but by arrangement, amongst the different parts of the county where they were necessary. Why should the south of a county pay for the police necessary to keep the peace in the north of the county? He did not think that it was fair, or that it would recommend itself to the Committee. The theory of the case was that if a district required additional
  628
  constables through an outbreak, those who had brought about that state of things should take the consequence, and bear the expense.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, a few years ago he had made ineffectual appeals to the then Irish Government to remedy the very grievance of which the hon. and gallant Member complained. For several years the county of Mayo was subject to charge of £1,500 a-year for extra police, although at no period had the county possessed its full quota. To bring the matter to a distinct point he wanted to know what security the Government would offer that no such injustice should be repeated in that or any other county? His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway did not contend for relieving the guilty district from the consequences of crime, but all he insisted upon was that there should be an equal distribution. To show how the matter might work he would take his own county—that of Mayo—because that county was denuded of its regulation number of police, and that district might be open to the commission of crime. If the guardians of the peace were withdrawn from certain districts to that extent the commission of crime might be facilitated, and crime having been facilitated in a county not provided with its full quota, it was now proposed to make that district responsible for crime. He thought a more rational view would be this—that the Government should take care, first, that each county had its full quota, and then if crime broke out it should be held responsible. The absence of the full quota was not so much a matter of accident, because for several years there had been a deficiency in that respect in his county, and because the Government were not amenable to any appeal from mere Irish Members the county had suffered from that deficiency. The Grand Jury had presented resolution after resolution protesting against that injustice; and what he now wanted to know was what guarantee the Government would give against such injustice being repeated?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied that the guarantee would be that the Force should be divided every five years amongst the counties, and the quotas distributed to each county would be maintained, except for vacancies

  629
  caused by death or other circumstances, which, of course, must always occur among such bodies of men.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that in a district of the county of Cork, owing to the absence of all outrage, the police force had been reduced to a minimum. In consequence of that, night patrolling was suspended and "Moonlight" operations began. According to the Attorney General for Ireland, extra police would have to be sent into that district, and the farmers would have to pay for what was caused by the authorities removing the police. He objected to the whole principle of charging particular districts; he would rather charge the whole county than inflict an enormous fine on some townland where the people might be totally innocent of the crimes committed. He thought the Government were in justice bound to see that the police was up to its full quota before charging any district for a single extra man.
  COLONEL NOLAN,referring to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland as to the vacancies in the Constabulary, said, it appeared from a Return up to 1873 that the force in the county of Antrim was 30 below its strength; Mayo, 57; Tipperary, 58; and there were only two counties in which the force was above its strength, one to the extent of 14 and another by one man. Unless his Amendment were adopted, districts or counties in Ireland might be charged to the extent of £10,000 or £15,000 a-year for extra police. The Government would lose nothing by the acceptance of his Amendment; and, while they lost nothing, they would show the people that though they were determined to strike hard, they were at the same time determined to strike fairly.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he really could not see what reasonable objection the Government could have to this Amendment. There had been no fairer proposal made to the Government during the whole progress of the Bill. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had had a similar Amendment on the Paper, but he supposed it was decided by the division on the present proposal. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) did not propose that where extra police had been brought into a district that district should be freed altogether from expense, but what he proposed was that nothing should be
  630
  charged to that district if the county in which it was situated had a sufficient quota—that was to say, before any district was charged with any extra taxation the whole county should have the number of police allowed to it by law. If there was a district that had 40 police, the majority of whom had nothing to do, 10 of them could be sent down to another district that might require the services of extra police, instead of the authorities having to get them from Dublin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not seem to understand the matter at all, because he said it would be unfair to charge a county with what was required for a particular district. But this they did not ask, because when a county had its full quota they did not object to the district being charged with the cost of maintaining its extra police. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that innocent people should not be asked to pay for the guilty, and in saying that he seemed to be labouring under the mistake made by the Home Secretary—he seemed to think that hon. Members from Ireland wished to have the county pay for the extra police sent into one of its districts. But that was not so. There was nothing whatever unreasonable in the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), and if the Government understood it thoroughly he did not think they could object to it. He trusted they would reconsider their decision.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had supported the Government in dealing with almost every Amendment under this Bill, believing that, under a capable Government, with such stringent powers as those contained in the measure, Ireland, which was in such a lamentable condition, could be well governed. In the present measure, however, the Government were endeavouring to deal with an unknown quantity. The word "ordinarily" in the clause was to be decided on the mere ipse dixit of one man. The number prescribed by the Statute, however, was a fixed number. He (Captain Aylmer) was impressed with the view of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan), and he believed that it would be better for the Government to accept the Amendment, which defined the number of police over and above which any particular district should be charged. If the num-

  631
  ber allowed to any particular district were exceeded, then that district should be called upon to pay for it. It would be dangerous to leave in the word "ordinarily," because it would only raise difficult questions, the ordinary number of police being sometimes one thing and sometimes another. He considered that the Amendment would be a great improvement to the clause.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, it seemed to him that the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) was a perfectly fair one—namely, that no charge should be made upon a county for extra police until the full quota, subject to the casualties which had been referred to, had been supplied to that county. The usual allowance for casualties should be from 5 to 10 per cent. The general principle of the Amendment seemed to him perfectly fair.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, as he understood it, the only question before the Committee was a question of fact. What he was informed was that the only deficiency in the number of men prescribed by Statute was that owing to casualties. ["No, no!"] Well, was he to understand from hon. Members that it was not—that it was over and above that? He was quite prepared to carry out what the Committee seemed to desire, and that it should be necessary for the county to have its full quota, making the ordinary deduction for casualties, before a district was charged with extra police. The Government would have no objection to accept the Amendment, subject to the limitation as to casualties.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was willing to accept the modification, if casualties were properly regulated. A policeman disabled by sickness was fairly a casualty. There was nothing more common than for a commandant to take a man for his servant and put him down as a casualty, or to return the men in the band and the mess waiters as casualties. He had no objection to ordinary casualties, but he objected to things of this kind being done.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the better plan would be to bring up the Amendment on Report. He was quite prepared to admit that a man who
  632
  was taken by an officer as his servant, or a man who was taken on to wait at mess, could not fairly be regarded as a casualty. It should be borne in mind that a casualty might not be able to be released for a week or two, until the man who was to take his place had gone through sufficient drill to enable him to do so.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he trusted that this question would not be allowed to stand over. It seemed to him that it would be perfectly ridiculous to insert simply the words suggested by the Attorney General. They would be too vague and uncertain in their meaning to correct the abuses that at present existed. The Amendment, as it was proposed, seemed to him to be perfectly right in itself, and the Attorney General for Ireland must have been absent when the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) delivered his speech. What was the law in Ireland? There was a statutory obligation at the present moment on the Government to keep a certain number of police, as mentioned in the Act, at their full strength, pay them out of the Consolidated Fund, and then allot them amongst the different counties in Ireland. This the Government had not done. Their full strength was not maintained, and the counties were left without their proper complement of police. Protest after protest had been, without redress, made by Grand Juries in Ireland when called on to pay for extra police out of the county cess. The Attorney General could not be ignorant that these complaints had been made over and over again, and, he (Mr. Martin) regretted to say, without avail. Why had they been without avail? Because the Lord Lieutenant, under the law as it stood, could prescribe a certain number of extra Constabulary for a county, and it was impossible for the Grand Jury in any way to traverse His Excellency's decision. In moving the Amendment, his hon. and gallant Friend did not oppose the principle of the clause; but he stated that where the Constabulary of a county, of which a certain district formed a part, was already up to the full establishment—that was to say, when the statutory regulations had been fulfilled—if an extra force were required in that district, the people of that district should be called upon to pay for it. Therefore,

  633
  as the hon. and gallant Member said, first of all let the Government fulfil the obligations before they proceeded to one-rate and tax the farmers with a charge for extra police.
  MR. MARUMwas understood to support the Amendment.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the casualties were a part of the full establishment, and they, therefore, need not be mentioned in the clause. He thought they could accept the clause without the specified qualification.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)explained that allowance must be made for casualty cases which reduced the Constabulary in a county below the legal number.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said that if men were ill or if men died, they would not rank as casualties until their places were supplied from Dublin, and that was a very fair proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name, and it was to insert in line 27, after "may," the words, "by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council." The object of this proposal was that the Lord Lieutenant should not be allowed to exercise the powers vested in him by this clause unless he had previously received the advice and consent of the Privy Council. The principle of the Amendment was by no means a novel one, and, in moving it, he (Mr. Sexton) was simply adopting the principle which had run all through this Bill, because some of the most important powers of the measure could not be put in force without the advice and consent of the Privy Council having previously been obtained. He had no admiration for the Irish Privy Council, as the Government were well aware; but, if arbitrary powers to be exercised at all, he thought it much better that the unrestricted functions of an individual should be guided by the advice and consent of other persons. According to the Bill, if the Lord Lieutenant wished to proclaim a district, he had first to obtain the consent of the Privy Council. Whenever it was desired to arrest a stranger, therefore, it would be necessary to ob-
  634
  tain the sanction of the Privy Council—before any premises could be searched this sanction should be required, as it would be before any stranger was arrested. In a proclaimed district the Lord Lieutenant could do these things of his own motion; but it was necessary, in the first instance, to obtain the sanction of the Privy Council for the proclamation of the district. Why, then, should the very important, wide, and oppressive powers of this clause be allowed to be put into operation merely on the wish of the Lord Lieutenant? The Government had been asked to allow these things to take place by a vote of the local magistrates. They had, however, refused to assent to that proposition, and, as a matter of fact, there was something to be said in favour of that refusal, because it might be contended that it would lead to a serious loss of time when it might be necessary to act with promptitude. In the present case, however, such an argument could not be used.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it would be impossible for him to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), or one of his Colleagues, had moved a similar Amendment on a previous clause, and the answer which had been given to him was that this was an Executive function, the responsibility for which must rest on the person who exercised it—namely, the Lord Lieutenant. It might be necessary for the power to be exercised on an emergency, and it might not, therefore, be possible to assemble the Privy Council in time. The proclaiming of a district was a very different affair; it was a thing that would be discussed and well understood beforehand, and was a general operation with regard to which it would not be difficult to take the advice and receive the consent of the Privy Council.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the increase of the police was an Executive function. But what was the arrest of a

  635
  stranger but an Executive function; what was the searching of a domicile but an Executive function?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Lord Lieutenant was not assisted by the Privy Council in any of these matters to which the hon. Member was referring.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that clearly the consent of the Privy Council was necessary in these cases, because, unless they had consented to a district being proclaimed, these functions could not be exercised in that district.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had already pointed out the difference between exercising a general power such as that of proclaiming a district and mere Executive functions.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the next Amendment was in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), but in the absence of that hon. Gentleman he should take upon himself to move it. It was, in line 27, after "may," to insert—
  "By proclamation, to be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' declare that, for the reasons aforesaid, such district requires an additional establishment of police, and thereupon may."
  The Amendment was one very similar to an Amendment which had been accepted by the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "by proclamation, to be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' declare that, for the reasons aforesaid, such district requires an additional establishment of police, and thereupon may."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought there could be no objection whatever to this Amendment. He would accept it with a mere verbal alteration of the words. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment and would agree to its being altered by leaving out the word "to," and inserting the words, "which shall," and also by leaving out the word "thereupon," he would assent to the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "by proclamation which shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' declare that, for the reasons aforesaid, such district requires an additional establishment of police, and may."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it only right that the proclamation should first be made, and that then the order for extra police should follow.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it might be necessary to send down the order for additional police with the proclamation. The proclamation might be required on a sudden emergency, and the police might be wanted at once.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the next Amendment was in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and was to the effect that the number of extra police should only be such a number as, together with the number of Constabulary ordinarily employed in a district, should not exceed double such number. This Amendment he did not propose to move. There was, however, an Amendment standing in his own name which he proposed to move. It was in these words—
  "A copy of every such order shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' and shall be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  He did not suppose the Government would have any objection to this proposal, as it was in accordance with a Proviso inserted in another section of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 30, after the word "necessary," to insert the following sub-section:—"A copy of every such order shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette,' and shall be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not think the Government could

  637
  accept this Amendment. The Lord Lieutenant's order was to be made by a proclamation, and it would be published in The Gazette in the ordinary way. What was the use of republishing the order?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, at any rate, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the republication of the order in The Dublin Gazette, he might accede to the second part of the proposal, which was that the order—
  "Shall be laid before Parliament within four-teen days after the making thereof if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Amendment was not necessary, as the hon. Member would see when they got further on.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that apparently, in the estimation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, no Amendment was necessary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had drafted the Bill, and it therefore, no doubt, had his thorough approval, and it was very natural that, to his mind, no Amendment should be necessary. That, however, was not what the Committee thought about this Bill. This measure was the worst of all the Coercion Bills, and he did not see any reason why an exception should be made to the invariable rule that all proclamations and orders under such a measure should be laid before Parliament. What objection on earth could there be to inserting the last part of the Amendment, which was merely a provision that such order—
  "Shall be laid before Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament."
  What objection could there be to having these orders laid on the Table of the House? It would obviate the trouble and the great inconvenience of looking through the numerous pages of The Dublin Gazette to find these orders. If these things were presented to Parliament, they would be brought prominently before Members without delay. It must be borne in mind that a great many hon. Members had work of their own to do, besides going into these questions; and, moreover, when they
  638
  did interest themselves in a measure of this kind, they were not paid for the time they were bestowing upon it, as were the Attorney General for Ireland and his Colleagues. It was a serious matter to some hon. Members that they should not be unnecessarily delayed. The Returns they were asking for should be printed and circulated in the ordinary way, and he hoped the hon. Member would persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If I am in Order, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had challenged a division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, an hon. Member, a Friend of his, had put down in his name the following Proviso:—
  "Provided, That the total number of police in any district shall not be greater than the total number of crimes therein committed in the previous year."
  As, however, he did not understand it, he did not propose to move it.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that in line 36 he wished, before the words "the whole," to insert "one half." The reasons he should offer for this proposal were two. First of all, it was the old custom to charge only a portion, and, in proof of this, he would refer to the Report of the last Commission—Lord Monck's Commission of 1872. In that Report it was stated that, up to the present time, it had been the custom to charge the sum for extra police partly on the local rates. That was the custom in other Coercion Bills, and as he (Colonel Nolan) did not think this measure should go beyond other Coercion Bills in this respect he brought forward this Amendment. It seemed to him that half was a very fair proportion. If 10 policemen were charged to a particular district, as far as the Government were concerned, those men were knocked off the charge upon the general funds altogether; but yet the Government had these 10 men, he might say, under arms. The men were kept in a condition for active service, and on an emergency their services could be made available by the Government in. any part of Ireland. Although the Government might lose a portion of their services through their being kept in a particular district, the men were still existing, and it could not be said that the Government derived no benefit from

  639
  their services. The Government, therefore, he thought, should pay one-half the cost of their maintenance. The Bill was for the purpose of putting down crime in Ireland, and they would never be able to do that by doing an injustice. It would be the very worst thing to allow the people of certain districts to think that the Government were, as a matter of fact, making money out of them; and it would be very well, therefore, if this limit could be inserted in the Bill. The case of recruits for India was somewhat analogous to that which he wished to bring before the attention of the Committee. Recruits were drilled in this country for India, but a charge was made in respect of them partly upon India and partly on this country, because they were available for service in both countries, and both countries had the benefit of them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, before the words "the whole" to insert the words "one half of."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had referred to a Report dealing with the ordinary condition of Ireland, and in which the principle seemed to be contended for that of the whole charge for extra police but-one half should be borne by the locality where the police were required. They were not dealing with a similar case at present. What they were dealing with now was not altogether the prevention of crime, but the imposition of a penalty on a certain district for having done certain things or got into a particular condition, and to diminish that penalty by one-half would be a serious reduction of the punishment which might be necessary. The extra police who would be required in the district would be charged to that district. It would not only weaken, but altogether destroy the object of the clause if this Amendment were agreed to. The clause in its present form was just, and nothing could be more unjust than to charge to the rest of the community the cost of extra police who were doing duty, not in the interests of the general community, but in the interests of a particular district of that community. It would be a gross injustice to place one-half of the burden
  640
  due to the evil conduct of a district upon other districts which did not require additional police. The Government could not accept the Amendment, because it struck at the penal object of the clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply wished to quarter a number of police on a particular district as a punishment. The clause said that—
  "When it appears to the Lord Lieutenant from time to time, that by reason of the existence or apprehension of crime and outrage in any district, the numbers of constabulary ordinarily employed in such district are not sufficient, he may order additional constabulary to be employed in such district, and for that purpose may from time to time add to the Royal Irish Constabulary such officers and men (if any) as he thinks necessary."
  But, plainly, the one object for which they had to send additional police into a district was to help to get rid of resistance and to assist in the detection of crime. That, however, was not the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His statement was that the police should be sent to a particular district simply as a punishment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was very sorry if he had conveyed that impression to the hon. Member. He should have said that the main object of sending extra police into a district was to prevent crime, but, at the same time, equally with that, the extra police were sent into a district as the penalty of having rendered extra protection necessary. He had been addressing himself to the argument of the hon. Member, who wished the burden and the penalty to be divided. His reply was "No; it is the district which makes the additional charge necessary, and the district should bear the whole burden."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that anyone could see how the clause would work. A number of police were employed in a district, a crime was committed, the perpetrators of the crime were not discovered, owing to the want of detective skill on the part of the Constabulary; and because it was a military force. Then the people in whose district crime was committed were to suffer by having an additional police force quartered upon them and being compelled to pay for it because the Constabulary were inefficient as detectives of crime. See how the Act would work. The 3rd sub-section said—

  641
  "The whole, or such part of the whole as the Lord Lieutenant may order, or the amount so certified, shall be a charge payable by the district in which such additional constabulary are employed, or by any limited portion of that district as the Lord Lieutenant may order."
  This meant that they could send into a district consisting of a number of baronies a large number of additional police; that they could charge the whole amount of that addition upon the people of a parish, which, supposing it was in a town, might limit the payment of the charge to a very few persons. That would be a punishment of a very extreme kind, because it would enable the Executive absolutely to ruin people by a Constabulary tax. He did not think the Government could wish the clause to have such an extreme effect—to provide such an extremity of punishment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that as to whether it should be a part of the district upon which the charge should be made, that question would crop up on another Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that in 1872 there was a Coercion Act, and the Report from which he had quoted had evidently contemplated a state of coercion under that Act. There were two points in the speech of the Home Secretary that were deserving of attention. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Government wished not to prevent crime, but to punish a district. That reminded him of the famous Dragonnades of Louis XIV. He always understood that the police were put into a district for the purposes of prevention. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" Then, what followed? If the police were simply sent into a district for the purposes of prevention, the district certainly ought not to be called upon to pay the whole expense, because it could not be said that the district only, and not the Government, were reaping advantage from the services of the men. The Government were always reaping a certain amount of good out of the police. The Force was always useful, and the Exchequer was always supposed to pay for a protective body, whether they were soldiers, policemen, or whatever they were. He thought they should limit the maximum that the district would have to pay. He did not know whether it should be one-third or
  642
  two-thirds, but, at any rate, there ought to be a limit. The Home Secretary need not be a bit afraid that he would not be sufficiently taxing the district. There was no doubt that a great deal of misery would be produced when the taxes were put on, whether the district was called upon to pay the half or the whole of the charge for the additional police. The punishment would be quite enough, and the Home Secretary need not seek to make it more severe than the actual necessities of the case required.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite inaccurate, from a technical point of view, in saying that the operation of the clause which he (Mr. O'Connor) had called attention to was not embodied in the present, but in a subsequent portion of it, and that the Amendment, therefore, properly belonged to that subsequent portion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would see that there was an indissoluble connection between the amount that should be charged and the extent of the area over which the charge should be levied. However, he (Mr. O'Connor) would not go on with that point if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he intended to introduce words into the clause which would have the effect of preventing the Executive using this power in the extreme manner he had pointed out. He did not suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman would contend that in a small district, such as a townland consisting of one or two houses, the Lord Lieutenant should actually have power under this clause to put the whole charge for additional Constabulary on such a limited area. There was another part of the clause which had not been considered, and that was the portion which gave power to make exemptions. The Lord Lieutenant could exempt any specified rateable property in a district, so that it came to this, that the Lord Lieutenant could exempt from the small area of a townland the property of certain persons, and charge the whole cost of additional police upon half-a-dozen individuals, by this system of inclusion and exclusion. The Home Secretary at that moment appeared to be drafting some more important Amendment than that to which he was referring, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to be paying the least attention to the observations

  643
  he (Mr. O'Connor) was submitting. The charge, as he had said, might, through this system of exemptions, be put upon one or two individuals. That was certainly such an extreme power to give that he could not help thinking that, on reflection, the Government would see the necessity of putting in something to prevent such a use being made of these powers.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that the power of exemption would involve, no doubt, in certain cases, a very heavy tax upon a very small number of people. That was inherent in the whole construction and principle of these clauses. He considered the provisions of the sections very unjust, and he referred not only to that before the Committee, but to those which came after. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) had made out an unanswerable case for not more than one-half being charged on a district. His right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had not been in his place when he (Colonel Colthurst) had mentioned a case within his knowledge a short time ago. He had pointed to a case within his own experience, where in a certain locality the number of police, which, for ordinary purposes was five, was reduced to three just before the "Moonlighting" in that district began. It might fairly be said that as the number of men for patrolling was so seriously reduced, crime was consequent upon the withdrawal of the Constabulary; and, in such a case, where extra police were sent down, it would be a punishment inflicted on the people of that district in consequence of the carelessness or bad administration of the authorities in withdrawing part of the Force.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the effect of this clause would be to put a heavy penalty on certain districts in Ireland—a penalty for misconduct. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten that no misconduct was necessary to bring down upon the district these extra police. Was it not stated in the clause that—
  "By reason of the existence or apprehension of crime and outrage in any district, the number of constabulary ordinarily employed in such district"
  might be added to? Where was the necessity for misconduct? The extra police might be sent over because certain land-
  644
  lords and others in a district chose to be unnecessarily alarmed. There was not an Irish Member who was not aware that unfounded apprehension arose from time to time in every part of Ireland. He recollected reading in the correspondence of a Dublin Conservative newspaper, not long ago, that there was to be a rising in the city of Waterford. The correspondent who suggested that was backed up by the editors of his paper. It was stated that on the Monday after the date of the letter there was to be a rising in the city and county of Waterford. An absolute panic was caused by that letter. A number of people in the district were fools enough to believe that something of the sort was imminent.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is discussing a matter which we have long since parsed.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that this clause, or part of it, would put a penalty on a district for crime. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what misconduct was necessary, according to the Bill, for the extra police to be sent down and the tax in regard to them to be imposed—what misconduct was necessary more than the apprehension—the "reasonable apprehension"—felt by certain Justices? Was it fair to put, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman confessed was, a heavy and ruinous penalty upon certain persons because of the ridiculous apprehensions of a few people?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had made an announcement that certainly did not appear in the clause, to the effect that the levying of the cost of the extra police would operate as a penalty upon the district to which the police were sent; and it might, therefore, be necessary to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how many other hidden intentions lay in the clause? He confessed that he viewed the matter with some apprehension, because there might be other purposes of the kind latent in the Bill which would be discovered and acted upon when the Bill went into the hands of the magistrates and police in Ireland. The reason assigned by the clause for the increase of Constabulary in any district was that such increase was necessary for the prevention of crime

  645
  and outrage—this idea of a penalty or punishment, or whatever else it might be called, being certainly a new one, which, although it threw no light on the clause itself, yet enabled one to see clearly the spirit in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding with the Bill and the way in which it would be worked in Ireland. The powers to be given to the Lord Lieutenant were complete and irresistible—power to inflict ruin upon hundreds of individuals, equivalent to the eviction or sentence of death, was placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. And yet the clause seemed to be more merciful than the Home Secretary, for it said that only a part of the charge for extra police might be levied on the district, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in order to make the clause effectual, the whole charge must be levied. He contended that no case had been made out against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee rather exaggerated what had fallen from him with reference to this Amendment. His statement was that if the condition of a district made it necessary to employ within it a greater number of police, it was fair that the cost of the extra police should be paid for by that district, inasmuch as it created the necessity for their being sent there; and he said, in addition to the prevention of crime, which was the main object of the increase of the police, that the cost might operate as a wholesome penalty. But the clause said the whole or such part of the whole charge might be imposed as the Lord Lieutenant might order. That was entirely consistent with what he had said. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had complained of the great hardship which would be inflicted on the district; but the district could always relieve itself of that hardship by doing the work which would otherwise have to be done by the extra police—that was to say, assisting in the prevention and detection of crime. In England and Scotland there existed a willingness on the part of the population to aid the police by giving information tending to the discovery and prevention of crime, and it was seldom necessary to resort to measures for the
  646
  increase of the police in consequence. In Ireland, however, the people showed no such disposition to aid the police, and, therefore, a great addition to the ordinary police force became necessary. That was the condition of things they had to deal with; and the Government desired by this clause to create an interest amongst the people of Ireland in doing what was done by the people in the other parts of the Kingdom—namely, supplement the efforts of the police in the execution of the law. The Government believed that if they could make the disturbed districts in Ireland feel that they were pecuniarily interested in the detection and prevention of crime, they would have gone a long way in the direction of removing an evil which lay at the root of the difficulty with which they had to deal.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYwas understood to put the case of a landlord having estates in different parts of the country, being murdered in the district where one of the estates lay by men who came from the neighbourhood of one of his other estates where he had made himself unpopular, and to ask whether it was fair that the district where the crime was committed should be taxed to make good the act of men who were strangers there? Everyone knew that it was a common thing in Ireland for men to go to a place where they were unknown to the people, commit an offence of the kind, and steal away afterwards without being taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had spoken of the wonderful services done for the police by the people of this country; but there was no city in the world in which a greater number of murders were committed from year to year without the persons who committed them being brought to justice than in London. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that any one particular district of London ought to be taxed because a murder had been done in another district, and the perpetrators of it remained undiscovered?
  MR. METGEconsidered that the statement of the Home Secretary, that the charge was for the purpose of punishment as much as for prevention, altered the complexion of the clause altogether. He thought that great hardship would clearly result unless the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon.

  647
  and gallant Member for Galway. The case would not be so bad if the cost of extra police were only incurred when actual crime existed; but the Committee would remember that the extra police were to be sent to districts where there was only the apprehension of crime. He repeated, that to charge the district with the whole cost of the extra police force would be great hardship upon the people, especially as the Home Secretary had told the Committee that it was not only on the motion of the Lord Lieutenant, but when the people of the district thought it necessary, that this extra police force should be allocated to them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I never said that this would be done on any authority other than that of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. METGEwas glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that, because it very much altered the inference drawn from his argument. Still, he thought he should either accept the Amendment, or limit the application of the clause to cases of actual crime.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the words "or apprehension" were then part of the clause, and could not again be discussed.
  MR. METGEsaid, looking at the cost of the extra police as a punishment to be extended to a large area, he thought that punishment should only be inflicted where crime had been actually proved to exist before the ordinary tribunals. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had mentioned the case of a county being charged for extra police upon apprehensions that were entirely groundless—no facts or figures having been forthcoming to prove the case. He contended that if the innocent were to be punished with the guilty, they should take care that the punishment was mitigated to the fullest possible extent.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that as the Bill stood, for the purpose of charge, the district might be as large as a county, and for the purpose of punishment, as small as a townland. He traversed the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was necessary to give these districts a pecuniary interest in the detection of crime. Had he studied the history of crime in Ireland, the right hon. and learned
  648
  Gentleman would have had the lesson brought home to his mind that pecuniary rewards for the discovery of criminals had never succeeded in that country Were that not the case, would the perpetrators of almost every crime of magnitude committed there have remained undiscovered? It would be learned from the history of Irish crimes that the persons who committed them were strangers to the localities where they took place, and whom it was almost impossible to discover, because they ran away as soon as they had committed them. Take, for instance, the recent brutal murder of Mr. Bourke. Mr. Bourke had property in two counties, and although his murderers might have came from a part of the country distant from that in which the crime was committed, yet, under this clause as it stood, the Lord Lieutenant would be able to make the people of a townland liable for the crime, although they might detest it and be in no way responsible for it. Was not the term "district" large enough to include a county, and small enough to mean half-a-dozen houses in a townland? If that was so, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman pretend that this extremity of punishment might not be inflicted where there was absolute ignorance of the crime?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the extent of the district was entirely in the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant; it might be as large or as small as the circumstances of the case seemed to him to require. It might be a large district in which the additional police were required, and in that case the burden of cost would be small; or it might be a small district, in which case the charge would fall more heavily. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), it was quite true, according to the information which reached him, that the men who committed the crimes in question were strangers to the districts in which they committed them; but they went there upon the invitation, and frequently upon the wages, of the district. They met almost universally with the sympathy of the people in the district, who did all they could, it might be, to assist in the crime, but, at all events, to insure its being done with impunity. This practice, with which they were acquainted in Ireland, had at one time existed in

  649
  Pennsylvania, where, seven years ago, one district was obliged to exchange murderers with another, and also to borrow them when they wanted them. Now, it was desirable that the districts into which these foreign importations took place should, first of all, have an interest in keeping the assassins away; and, secondly, if they came there, that they should have an interest in doing everything in their power to give them up to justice. The districts in which these crimes were committed with impunity ought, in his opinion, to have a pecuniary interest in putting an end to that impunity; and it might be depended upon that, as soon as it was known that the people would concur inputting down crime, and giving up the offenders to justice, this knowledge would be equivalent to the presence of thousands of additional police.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the power of levying compensation on districts for crimes committed in them had existed for six years under the Act of 1870; but he challenged his right hon. and learned Friend to put forward one case of crime detected in consequence of that power to levy compensation.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, his experience of the United States of America did not confirm the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was the practice in Pennsylvania for some of the districts to exchange murderers with others. It was curious to observe how the necessity under which the Governmentlay of defending the armoury of clauses in the Bill involved a mass of contradictions on their part. The crimes in question were committed by strangers who went to the district of their own accord, and after committing the crime—usually in the night-time—stole away again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now said that the strangers were invited and paid by the district. It was saddening to him to find such a horrible imputation as that cast, without a single fact in support of it either stated or insinuated, against a people devoted to religion, and who were as severe upon crime as any people in the world. And it was still more disheartening to hear that hideous charge cheered by a body of hon. Gentlemen who, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman who made it, had never set foot in Ireland. When the passage of a Bill was promoted by such
  650
  arguments, and when the majority of the Committee were prepared to cheer them, it might seem that the time had arrived for abandoning all argument. But Irish Members would not give up their arguments against this Bill. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give an instance to show-that he had information at command to justify what he had said as to the invitation of murderers, and the payment of them by the districts where their crimes were committed, he should be compelled to stigmatize as most wanton the statement he had made.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. Member for Sligo that these murders were committed at night, the state of terror established in many parts of Ireland was such that all the great crimes which had horrified this country had been performed in broad daylight. Therefore, he said, the clause was necessary to relieve a people, who, he was proud to say, were as free from ordinary crime as any people in the world, from this dishonour and from this evil, which was a permanent source of injury to them. Although, as he had just said, the Irish people were a people wonderfully free from crime of ordinary character, they had been overridden by a system which produced these terrible outrages and assassinations, and, therefore, it was necessary to take the precautions provided by the clause for the purpose of getting rid of those crimes.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that hon. Members had strayed considerably from the point under discussion, which was as to whether the whole or one-half of the whole charge for extra police should be paid by the district to which they were sent.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, his argument against the whole of the charge being borne by the district was that the Irish Constabulary had, so to speak, a police value and a military value, which latter, he contended, ought to be paid for out of the general resources of the country. If the Government could not put down crime in the ordinary way, he said they ought not to meet crime with injustice by charging the military value of the Constabulary to the district in which that crime was committed.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, if it could be shown that the whole district was in sympathy with the crime committed

  651
  within it, there would be something in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. But he supposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that everyone who would have to pay taxes for these crimes had an object in those crimes being committed. On the contrary, he presumed he would admit that in the most disorderly district there might be some people who had no knowledge of the crime committed there. Nevertheless these innocent people would, under the clause, be punished as severely as those who had a guilty knowledge of the crime. Now, this was manifestly unjust. The aim of the law ought certainly to be the avoidance, as much as possible, of inflicting punishment on innocent people; it ought certainly to avoid laying upon them heavy burdens which would incline them to sympathize with offences against the law. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed himself confident of the success of this blood tax, or punishment, or whatever else it might be called; but, as had been pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst), that although the Government had possessed this power for six years under the Act of 1870, it had never acted in any instance in preventing crime, nor in discovering the criminals. Therefore, it was not to be supposed that it would produce any different result now. One of its effects, however, would unquestionably be to anger the district to which it was to be applied under this Act, and indispose the people to assist the officers of the law in the detection of crime. But Ireland was not the only country in which murders were committed openly. It must be within the memory of hon. Members that a woman had recently been murdered in front of that House at a time when hundreds of people were passing the spot. No one had been brought to justice for that murder, although it had been committed in the eight of many persons. In pursuance of the argument of the Government, the people of Westminster ought to be punished severely for that crime. Under this Bill it would be quite possible to confiscate the property of a whole district, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment, which would have some effect in mitigating the severity of the measure.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 146: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would not move his Amendment to leave out from "or" to the end of the clause.
  MR. MARUM MR. MARUM moved to leave out from "the," in page 7, line 39, to end of the clause, and insert—
  "Grand jury of the county in which such district is situate may determine as hereafter enacted."
  His desire was that the Grand Jury, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, should determine the district which should pay for the extra Constabulary. Nearly at the end of the Amendment Paper he had put down an Amendment which would convey his idea in the shortest manner. It was that—
  "'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 he situate shall from time to time present to he 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."
  He did not wish it to be thought he was in love with the Grand Jury system. He was nothing of the kind; but, at the same time, he considered the system contained some elements of representation. He would prefer that the absolute power to tax the country should be placed in the hands of the Grand Juries rather than in the hands of the Executive. The Peace Preservation Act, 1870, did not contain a provision to the effect that the Constabulary should be applotted in the manner proposed by this section, and his subsequent Amendment would make the taxation for the Constabulary presentable by the Grand Juries. He wished that the principle of representation should be regarded in the case of this taxation. No doubt, the objection taken to his proposal would be that the Grand Jurors would be intimidated from doing their duty. But by the 4th clause the

  653
  Government had endeavoured to cope with intimidation of every kind, so that unless they distrusted their own legislation the Government ought not, in regard to this Amendment, to set up the plea of intimidation. He had had a great deal of experience of Grand Jurors and local magistrates, and he might say that intimidation had never been practised upon them. He, perhaps, had exercised his functions as a Grand Juror and as a magistrate quite independently, and had never been subjected to any kind of intimidation. He had no doubt that was the experience of other gentlemen, and, therefore, the plea of intimidation would not hold good. He would much prefer that the Grand Jury of a county, limited, as it was, in point of representation, should assess the taxation for the extra Constabulary, rather than the Executive. He, therefore, moved his present Amendment, and, of course, if it fell to the ground, his subsequent Amendment would likewise fall.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from "the," in page 7, line 39, to end of Clause, and insert "grand jury of the county in which such district is situate may determine as hereinafter enacted."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Lord Lieutenant may order' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would not detain the Committee by any lengthened remarks, for really he had to say just what he said on the proposal to insert "magistrates" in this clause. He was of opinion that by the adoption of this Amendment Grand Juries would be exposed to a pressure which they would be very little able to resist. They had heard something of public opinion acting upon Grand Juries and magistrates; but at the present time, unfortunately, public opinion acted in a very peculiar manner in Ireland. He did not think it would be at all safe to leave the exercise of a power of this kind, which unquestionably was one which imposed very severe burdens, which would be very strongly resented, on the Grand Juries. The Government, therefore, proposed to leave the power exclusively in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, just a
  654
  while ago, when speaking to another Amendment, to say words which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) interpreted to mean that he had some idea of himself amending that portion of line 39 which said "by any limited portion of that district."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was not what he had said. What he pointed out was that the question would arise later upon the Amendment dealing with areas. He did not intimate any desire to alter the clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, there was no such Amendment on the Paper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are Amendments on the Paper leaving out the power of limiting the area.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the reason why he raised the point now was this, that he had intended to raise the question again in the shape of an Amendment to this portion of the clause. He was urged to do so by the observations of the Home Secretary, who, while certainly leaving himself perfectly free as to what he would or would not do, conveyed the impression that he would consider the matter at the proper time.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment he referred to was that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). That Amendment was to leave out from "or," in line 39, to the end of the clause, and that Amendment would have had the effect of leaving out the whole power of limitation.
  MR. HEALYsaid, if he had moved that Amendment, another Amendment could not have been taken.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to take advantage of the oversight. Would he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) not be in Order, in case his hon. Friend (Mr. Marum) consented, with the assent of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment, in going back to that portion of the clause, and in proposing to omit the words "or by any limited portion of that district?"
  MR. MARUMsaid, he would be quite content to withdraw his Amendment. His object in bringing it forward was to protest against the fact that large taxes would be imposed without any direct representation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved to leave out, in page 7, line 39, "or by any limited portion of that district." The point was raised on a previous part of the clause; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had failed to properly appreciate it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the districts might be large or small, as the Lord Lieutenant might delegate. That, however, was not the point of the Irish Members. Their point was that the extra police might be sent into a large district, and then the charge might be made on a small portion of the district. That was an obvious injustice which he did not think the Government could have contemplated. An extra police force might be sent to the county of Mayo, for instance, and their cost of maintenance might actually be charged upon a street in Ballina. It surely would be sufficient if the clause ran—
  "The whole, or such part of the whole as the Lord Lieutenant may order, of the amount so certified, shall be a charge payable by the district in which such additional constabulary are employed, as the Lord Lieutenant may order."
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, to leave out the words "or by any limited portion of that district."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the object of the clause was to give the Lord Lieutenant the discretionary power to charge the whole or any portion of the expense of the extra Constabulary upon the entire district or any part of the district which might be called the seat of crime. A whole country might be said to be more or less disturbed; but suppose there were spots where the "Moonlighters" carried on their practices, it was considered necessary that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power to levy the taxation upon those spots. The hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) certainly put an extreme case when he spoke of the charge being placed on a street in Ballina.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, there could be no stronger condemnation of the clause than the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said the object of the
  656
  clause was to give the Lord Lieutenant power to levy this police tax upon any district which might be called the seat of crime. Would it not follow that, in 99 cases out of every 100, the punishment would fall upon innocent people and not upon the criminals? Under this Bill a policeman would be able to entice a man into a crime he would afterwards denounce, and the consequence might be that the last shred of property a man might possess, although he was not a criminal, might be taken away from him. He wondered that the Government were not ashamed to put forward such a proposition, and to put it forward in such a manner, that a man was to be punished without trial, and that the punishment was to be so severe as in many cases to deprive him even of his last shilling. As the clause now stood, it was obvious that only limited districts would be mulcted. The district might not be one like Ballina, but it might be a limited township with, perhaps, no more than one struggling farmer in it. Townships of this kind existed in Ireland, and such a man as this one farmer might be deprived of every farthing he possessed in the world without any charge being made against him, or without having any opportunity of vindicating his character. He would urge upon the Government to do something to mitigate the undisguised injustice of this section, and to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant to inflict these punishments on large districts, so that there should be some chance of the money being paid without ruin to the inhabitants.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had made a concession which was so important that he considered it ought to have been made earlier in the discussion. They had all along been trying to drag out of the Government that this was really intended as a punitive clause; and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the last moment said that it was not for the prevention of crime, but for the punishment of crime. The Constabulary were simply to be quartered on the people in Ireland as in the old days—they were to have these quarterings of Constabularly upon the people in the future, just as in the past they had had the Hessians from Germany quartered upon them. The point was one of great im-

  657
  portance; but he thought they should reserve the discussion until a time when they would be in a better condition to take it. As they would have to meet at 12 o'clock to-day, he begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. What he had said was that if the character of the offence was of a certain kind, the clause would have a punitive tendency. He did not say that the police were to be sent into a district as a kind of punishment, and be kept there whether there was any necessity for their presence or not. With regard to the Motion which had just been made, and the reason for which it had been brought forward, he would point out that they were all rowing in the same boat. They would all have to be there at 12 o'clock, so that it was not so hard on hon. Members below the Gangway opposite as it was upon the Government. Members of the Government had other business to do besides explaining the provisions of this Bill.
  MR. HEALY: And so have we.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, admitting all that, he thought it would be possible to go on with the Committee a little later to-night.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, that they were all rowing in the same boat; but it was also true that they did not all row with the same sculls. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government had other things to do. But so had the Irish Members. They had their private affairs to attend to, but they did not get sufficient time to enable them to properly look after those affairs; and, besides, they did not get the handsome salaries for attending to Business in the House which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Colleagues received. He should persist in his Motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 114: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
  MR. BIGGARbegged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. It was a quarter past 1 o'clock, and it could not be said that if they went on any further, as they had to come back at 12 o'clock, there would be sufficient time for them to rest. He trusted the Government would give the Committee sufficient indulgence to enable them to continue the discussion satisfactorily tomorrow.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair.—(Mr. Biggar.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that as they were so very near the end of the clause, they might be allowed to finish it. He might be allowed to say that the points raised by hon. Members opposite might be met by dealing with only a limited part of the district on that portion of the clause which subsequently gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to make exemptions. Under that part of the clause it would be possible to exempt from any heavy tax those persons who were innocent, and who might be materially injured by being called upon to pay an unjust charge. He did certainly accept the principle that a district that had given rise to the employment of additional constables should be the district that should bear the burden; and, certainly, it was not intended that if the whole district required the use of these additional constables, particular parts of the district should be exempted, and only a small portion made to bear the expense. That would not be fair, and that was not the intention of the clause. On the understanding that they might be allowed to go on with the clause, he should have no objection to insert words further on to provide that the charge should not be thrown upon a limited portion of the district, as long as it was understood that the district was one where the additional constables were to be employed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should be very happy if he could accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. He did not think they should argue about the Motion to report Progress; but, as far as he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the clause would be left entirely as it was. The Home Secretary said he would re-

  659
  tain the power to exempt a portion of the district. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!] Then he must have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As the proposal was, it amounted to this—to take away the power of placing the burden upon a certain portion of the district, but to give the Lord Lieutenant power to exempt a part of the district.
  MR. CALLANsaid, this was the most objectionable part of the whole clause. It would enable Mr. Clifford Lloyd—for it was not the Lord Lieutenant directly who would exercise the power, or any of the Special Magistrates or Sub-Inspectors who made the report—to exempt certain portions of a district from taxation in regard to extra Constabulary. This power might be exercised in respect of a townland or a bog. It was no secret that the Government meant, by this clause, to exact from the tenants the funds necessary to pay the expense of the combination proposed by the scheme of the late Member for Car-low (Mr. Kavanagh). One of the Members of the Government, he knew, had recently been in consultation with the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) on this subject. They knew perfectly well what this meant, and that the Government were determined to use this clause for the purpose of breaking down all combinations on the part of the Irish tenants. The hon. Member to whom he referred as having been in consultation with the hon. Member for Portarlington was an accredited emissary of the Government. He would urge the Committee not to give power to the Lord Lieutenant to exempt persons from the payment of this tax, because it would not be the Lord Lieutenant who would really exercise the power. The Sub-Inspectors would do so after consultation with the promoters of this new Land Colonization Association of Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had not intended to give with one hand and take away with the other. The object of the exemption was very different from the object of that part of the clause which hon. Members wished now to amend. It was this. Supposing a person had his house or property attacked or injured, it might be necessary to have additional constables for his protection. It would be very unfair
  660
  that such person should be called upon to bear the burden of such a charge. It was, therefore, deemed advisable to take power to make special exemptions in such cases. As to the Lord Lieutenant having power to make a charge over the whole area where additional constables were employed, it had been proprosed to limit it to a portion of the area; but this Her Majesty's Government were willing to give up, because he could quite believe that the power might be unfairly used.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the Committee that the Question is that I do leave the Chair.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not wonder that the Chairman found it necessary to remind the Committee that the Motion before it was that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had deliberately led them into a discussion upon another subject.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, then, all he could say was he regretted very much that he had made this proposal. He had made it in the hope that it would shorten the discussion; and he believed now, as he had believed three or four times previously, that the best thing one should do for the purpose of saving time was to accept Amendments proposed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that certainly the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as he had been able to observe, seldom erred in the direction he had mentioned. It appeared to him (Mr. Gray) that the remaining words of this clause that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to amend did not bear the limited meaning the right hon. and learned Gentleman put upon them. ["Divide!" "Order!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been allowed to make his statement; but when Irish Members wished to answer him they were not allowed to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to modify the clause in the sense indicated, the Motion at present before the Committee might, he thought, be withdrawn. As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman regretting having made the proposal, it made no difference to them whether he regretted his action or not. The words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to leave

  661
  out in the early part of the clause were immaterial, and ought to have been omitted originally by the draftsman, as there was no meaning in them. They were simply a duplication of something which followed. This proposal re minded him of a story he heard a little time ago, when a Parliamentary drafts man—
  MR. BORLASErose to Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is not with regard to the Amendment or the clause, but whether I shall leave the Chair.
  MR. GRAYsaid, quite so; but he was merely following at a respectful distance the example set by the Home Secretary. As, however, the Chairman called his attention to the fact that the Question was that he should leave the Chair, he should reserve his story about the Parliamentary draftsman until the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Borlase) was in a more indulgent mood. It was now nearly half-past 1 o'clock, and they had to meet at 12 to-morrow. Under these circumstances, and as the Home Secretary did not seem inclined to accept any Amendment which had the least significance, he thought that the present Motion should be withdrawn; but that they should agree to a Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he always thought that concessions made by the Government in these matters were made, not to individuals or to parties, but to justice. If concessions were made to justice, why should they be regretted or taken back?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was glad that at last they had got from the discussion of this illusory subject. Hon. Members had been here up to a late hour last night, and to-day, from the commencement of Business, they had been continuously discussing this Bill, with no time for rest. In 10 hours more they would have to be back again in the House. It was not in human nature for them to continue any longer. Whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary might say to the contrary, they ought not to be asked to go on any further, and, what was more, they would not.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 105: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
  MR. GRAYsaid, it was unfair to a small majority, contending for principles which they considered of vital importance, that the Government should, without any object, make use of the physical force at their disposal to continue discussion at unreasonably late hours. Some regard must be paid to the weakness of human nature, which in this case rendered repose absolutely necessary, because they had to re-assemble at 12 o'clock to continue the consideration of this Bill in Committee. As they had now devoted 10 hours to this work, he would move to report Progress, and he could see no reason why that Motion should not be agreed to by the Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Oray.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had made two statements in support of his Motion. He said there was no reason for opposing it, and no object to be gained by opposing it. That there was no object to be gained by that course, experience had shown; but that there was no reason for objecting to Progress being reported, he (Sir William Harcourt) was not able to admit. Again, the hon. Member said that there should be time for reasonable discussion. He was quite in accord with the hon. Member on that point; but he contended that what was taking place on this clause was not in the nature of reasonable discussion. There had only been one point discussed that evening, and that had already been discussed since the clause had been before the Committee. The support which hon. Members had upon the last division on the clause had come more largely from hon. Members in other parts of the House than from the Benches below the Gangway opposite. But in the last division they had received no such support, which clearly showed that the majority considered the course now being taken by hon. Members opposite was unreasonable. It was the opinion of the House of Commons, and he was sure it was also the opinion of the country at large, that the course which was now being taken on this Bill was not taken with a view to reasonable and fair discussion, because on many

  663
  occasions it had far exceeded those limits. But, as the hon. Member had said, in the present state of its Rules, the House was powerless to contend against a minority engaged in unreasonable opposition.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he must interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the purpose of informing him that he had never used any such words.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had understood the hon. Member to say that this was a reasonable Motion, and that, in mercy to hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Benches opposite below the Gangway, it should not be resisted by the Government. But there were other hon. Members in the House to whom mercy was not shown—namely, hon. Gentlemen on those Benches who had occupations to pursue apart from their Parliamentary duties—but who felt, nevertheless, that it was their duty to press on with the Bill. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined to carry on opposition of this character, he could not say, on that occasion, at any rate, that the Government were prepared to offer the resistance which certainly, on these conditions, must, in some shape or other, be offered by the House of Commons.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would scarcely accuse him of unduly delaying the Bill. For his own part, he felt he had not paid sufficient attention to it. Seeing that this was an Irish Bill, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had looked more closely into the divisions which had taken place, he would have seen that the opinion of Irish Members was overwhelmingly opposed to further discussion at that hour. He said that upon an Irish question the opinion of Irish Members that Progress should be reported was at least deserving of some consideration.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, the two Motions for Adjournment had been defeated by very large majorities—the minority in each case being composed of a small faction which mustered but one-fifth of the whole Irish vote. He thought the time had come when independent Members should convey to Her Majesty's Government their advice on this matter. He ventured to say that if the Government would take a more decisive course, in keeping to the Bill more than had
  664
  been the case up to the present, the measure would advance more rapidly. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman had learned, from what had occurred, that every concession made to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite in respect of this Bill was so much waste of time. He should be glad if Her Majesty's Government would organize relays for the purpose of carrying on the consideration of the Bill, both, by day and night, until it was completed; and in that case he felt sure they would receive the support of hon. Members on that side of the House and on the Benches opposite. He ventured to say that the people of Ireland would thank them for pursuing that course, because it could not be too distinctly understood, as he had already stated, that hon. Members who voted in the last divisions in the minority were but a small proportion of the whole number of Irish Representatives.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had no objection to the Government proceeding with the Bill in the manner that might recommend itself to the majority; but if they resorted to the plan advocated by the hon. Member who had just spoken, he trusted they would condescend to give the House some reasons for doing so. The point between the Home Secretary and Irish Members had been very much obscured by the passions which had been allowed to rise within the last half-hour. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had refused, after saying that he would accept the Amendment, to carry out his own offer. He had refused to leave out of the clause words which, if retained, absolutely made naught of the concession he had made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, therefore, alone responsible for the muddle into which the Committee had been allowed to drift. He must, however, qualify that expression by saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been not only carried away by his own temper, but by the demonstrations of hon. Members who could only cry "Divide!" with respect to a debate not one word of which they had heard.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 176.]
(Mr. Courtney, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Courtney.)
MR. MONKsaid, he presumed, from the contemptuous silence of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that he intended to oppose the Motion which he had placed on the Paper that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He was somewhat surprised at the course pursued, because, on moving the second reading of the Bill, his hon. Friend said that between that date and the day on which he would put down the Bill for Committee he would consider what course he would take, and whether it was advisable that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee or not. It was true that in the Lobby his hon. Friend had stated that he did not think it advisable that the Bill should be so referred; but it appeared to be only fair that he should state the grounds on which his conclusion was founded. He desired to call attention to Standing Order No. 194, which said that—
"All Bills promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works containing power to raise money shall be introduced as Public Bills, and after being read a second time by this House, shall be referred to a Select Committee, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection in like manner as Private Bills."
Now, he had submitted to the judgment of Mr. Speaker last year whether a Bill which was brought in by the Government on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works ought not to have been so sent up to a Select Committee; but, unfortunately, he did not become acquainted with the Standing Order in question until that Bill had passed through the Committee of the House, and, therefore, it was too late for Mr. Speaker's decision to be given when the occasion arose. But Mr. Speaker had said he should have hesitated to give an opinion, and that he thought it better to leave the matter to the decision of the House. He thought that not even the Secretary to the Treasury would contend that this was not a Money Bill, or that it was not promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works and placed in the
666
hands of the Treasury to introduce in that House. This was a Bill to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to tax the taxpayers of the Metropolis to the extent, this year, of something like £3,200,000. Passing from the Standing Order, which appeared to him to be imperative, he distinctly charged the Government, in the person of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, with a breach of faith if they did not agree to the Bill being sent up to a Select Committee. Last year, when he (Mr. Monk) made this proposal, the late Secretary to the Treasury expressed himself very favourable to such a course being adopted. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: No, no.] Did an hon. Member say "No, no?" [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Yes; I said "No, no."] His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) said "No, no." If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had Hansard within his reach, and would be good enough to refer to Vol. 263, page 1882, he would find the following words of the late Secretary to the Treasury (the late Lord Frederick Cavendish):—
"There was a general understanding that it would have been well, under ordinary circumstances, to have had the measure referred to a Select Committee; but that, owing to the period of the Session (July 25) and the Business before the House, it would not be wise so to refer it."—[3 Hansard, cclxiii. 1882.]
And the late noble Lord, at an earlier stage of the Bill, had said—
"He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk) would not press his Amendment to a division, although he was very much inclined to agree with the object of it. It seemed to him very desirable that this Bill should be considered by a Select Committee. … and he hoped the Bill would be introduced next year at such a period that it might bereferred to a Select Committee."—[Ibid. 1726.]
He (Mr. Monk) asked the House if anything could be clearer; and he appealed to the Members of the Government, of whom he saw a great number on the Treasury Bench, whether that was not a distinct pledge that the Bill should be introduced at an early period this year in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee? The Bill was introduced at a much early period this year than ever before. It was introduced on the 23rd of May, and he would give the House the dates on which it had been introduced during the last seven years. Seven years ago, when the late Govern-

667
ment was in power, the Secretary to the Treasury introduced this Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works on the 5th of July. In 1876 it was introduced on the 13th of July; in 1877, on the 16th of July; in 1878, on the 19th of July; in 1879, on the 29th July; in 1880, on the 26th July; and last year it was introduced on the 1st of July; and this year, in consequence of the pledge which was given to the House, the Bill was introduced two months earlier—namely, on the 23rd of May. Now, he asked on what ground did the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury refuse to refer this Bill to a Select Committee? He (Mr. Monk) would certainly take the sense of the House with regard to referring this Bill to a Select Committee. In order to meet the convenience of those hon. Members who wished to take the division and then go home, he would now confine his remarks to the pledge which was given, reserving to himself the right of discussing the Bill, which he would have to do at some length, if the House decided the measure should not go to a Select Committee. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill he referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Monk,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. COURTNEYregretted very much that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) should have thought he (Mr. Courtney) was guilty of any discourtesy in moving without a speech the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. At that time of the night, and with the remembrance before them that they had to meet again at 12 o'clock, he thought some respect was due to the House in general and that no words should be wasted that could by any possibility be saved. He need not tell the House that when the Bill was read a second time he gave his reasons for thinking it would be impolitic that they should refer it, this Session, to a Select Committee. He gave those reasons at some length, and he consented to postpone the Motion to
668
consider the Bill in Committee for a considerable time, in order that he might confer with those who were interested, to learn their opinions, and come to some conclusion upon the matter. He had in in the meanwhile availed himself of that opportunity in order to ascertain from the Members who were specially interested what they thought upon the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He conferred, amongst others, with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He learned what his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester had to say, and he gave the hon. Gentleman his reasons for thinking that the judgment of the House might go against him. If they could economize their time at all, they must do something of this kind and not repeat before the House what was well known to its Members. He believed that the practice of exchanging sentiments in the Lobby was most beneficial and likely to economize time, and he had conferred with hon. Gentlemen with that object. He would repeat shortly why he thought this Bill could not with convenience be referred to a Select Committee. The consideration of the Bill by a Select Committee would require a whole Session. [Mr. MONK: No, no!] The consideration of this Bill, as conceived by his hon. Friend and some of those who supported him, was neither more nor less than a Reference to the Select Committee of the whole conduct of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not at all dispute that that was a subject which might very well be considered by a Select Committee some day; but it would be impossible to consider—as it should be considered—the conduct and management of the Metropolitan Board of Works, without beginning the business at the commencement of the Session, and even then, he thought the labours of the Committee would not only extend throughout the Session, but throughout the next Session also. A Select Committee had been considering one branch of the Metropolitan Board of Works a greater part of last Session and this Session—namely, the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to artizans and labourers' dwellings. To consider the conduct of the Board of Works with respect to drainage, with respect to new streets, their action with regard to the Embankment, their system for the pre-

669
vention of floods, the improvements of parks and open spaces, and in addition to consider their financial management, could not, even in the opinion of the most sanguine person, be done fully and adequately in one Session. It would be useless to suppose that they could at that period of the Session enter on such work. Well, then, his hon. Friend had dwelt, not for the first time, upon the speech made by his noble Predecessor (the late Lord Frederick Cavendish). He (Mr. Monk) very frankly read them a quotation from the speech of the late noble Lord; but the words of the late noble Lord showed no more than this—a benevolent attitude of mind towards the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There was nothing in the nature of a pledge quoted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk). The words were before the House and could be judged by anybody; he submitted that they did not constitute a pledge at all. Reference was made to the Standing Order of the House, which was supposed to compel the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; but surely that position could not possibly be maintained. As he said at the outset, he did think at that time of the morning he ought not to make a long speech. He thought it impossible that the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee, and he hoped the House would support the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.
MR. WARTONsaid, he had a distinct recollection of the effect produced in the House by the words of the late lamented noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), and he thought it was rather too bad for the late noble Lord's Successor to talk about those words being prompted by mere benevolence. The late noble Lord was too honourable a man not to keep a pledge when he had given one, and the reason why the Bill was brought in so early this Session was that the Government meant to keep the pledge they had given. If they did not intend to keep it, there was no need to bring the Bill in earlier than usual. What was now done certainly amounted to a breach of faith. In plain words, the Government were not keeping their promise, a thing they did on many other matters besides this. He supposed the Government intended to hold out now a sort of promise for next year. [Mr. COURTNEY; I make no pledge.]
670
Better not, and then the pledge could not possibly be broken. The want of time was an excuse which was thoroughly inefficient. If the 23rd of May would not do, the Government ought to have brought the Bill in on the first day of the Session, and in that way not break faith, which had certainly been done with regard to the distinct undertaking of last year. There was another point in this case which ought to be considered, and that was the barefaced way in which the Metropolitan Board of Works went on, year after year, adding to its functions. The 13th section of this Bill dealt with matters which ought not to belong to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that was an additional argument why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It seemed really wrong—he did not wish to use a harsher word—that the Government should year after year put the House off in this way. What was the undertaking, or promise, or pledge, or benevolent intention of the present Secretary to the Treasury? The hon. Gentleman was certainly not so benevolent as his Predecessor. They heard about next year, and almost in the same breath as the endeavour was made to put them off with a plea of next year, they were told it would take the whole of the Session. If it could not be done now, it never would be done, and that was the effect of the Government taking upon themselves the responsibility of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Last year the Speaker decided that the Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works, because the names of two Members of the Treasury Bench were upon it, was promoted by the Government. He was not there to dispute the Speaker's ruling; but he certainly thought that, within the spirit of the Standing Order, it was perfectly clear that the Bill ought to have been referred to a Select Committee. It seemed a farce, that, according to the Standing Orders, this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that it was not referred to a Select Committee. Millions of pounds a-year were involved in this Bill, and it seemed unreasonable that millions of pounds should be raised from taxpayers, and that the taxpayers should have no control over the expenditure, because the Government had thrown its shield over a Board which arrogated fresh functions every year. He should certainly support the Amendment of

671
the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk).
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was in a very difficult position at that time of the morning, because, if he had time, he could answer every one of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; and also those made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had had 20 years' experience of the work of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and for 12 years had been Chairman of that Board. He could only say that if this Bill were to be sent to a Select Committee, it would be impossible, under any circumstances, to carry on the work of the Board. He could go through section after section of the Bill and show that the Metropolitan Board of Works were not trying to arrogate to themselves any fresh functions at all. These Bills were brought in and passed by both Houses, and then they received the Royal Assent. This Session there had been a very great improvement made in Tooley Street; and surely it was not befitting that what the Houses of Commons and Lords had agreed to should be sent up for judgment by a Select Committee. He could give the House many other instances, but he did not think it would be right, at that time of the morning, to do so. It was certainly his opinion that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had not properly looked into the matter. The hon. Member could not understand the affairs of the Metropolis, otherwise he would not have introduced this Motion into the House.
MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, that if there was one speech more than another which would entitle the Government to support it was the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The House was perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, apart from those assurances, there was a much larger and important consideration, and that was the view taken on this subject by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. There was a great public feeling, not only in that House but outside, upon this subject. It seemed perfectly monstrous to many that such a large sum as £3,000,000 should be annually extracted from the taxpayers
672
of the Metropolis, and with regard to this large expenditure the public should remain in complete and total darkness. He would have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend. In conclusion, he would ask the Speaker whether, in pursuance of Standing Order 194, this Money Bill ought not to be referred, in the ordinary course, to a Select Committee?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, the Speaker had decided the question of Order now raised last year. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) might say that this Bill was not promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works at all. It was promoted by Her Majesty's Government against the wish and will of the Metropolitan Board of Works, because they did not wish that, year after year, what was passed by the Houses of Parliament should be brought up over and over again, as this had been. The Metropolitan Board of Works had nothing whatever to do with the Bill beyond acceding to what Her Majesty's Ministers did in regard to it.
MR. MONKpointed out, that when the question with regard to the Standing Order was raised last year the Speaker hesitated to decide the question, and said he would leave it to the decision of the House. He (Mr. Monk) would like to point out that, though the Bill was brought in by the Government, it was clearly promoted by, and for the benefit of, the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. SPEAKER: I find that at the back of this Bill there are the names of the two Secretaries to the Treasury, and I apprehend that there can be no doubt the Bill is brought in on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 19: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
MR. COURTNEYsaid, he should be glad to report Progress if hon. Members would allow him to take the uncontro-

673
versial part of the Bill—namely, up to Clause 7.
MR. WARTONsaid, he would have no objection, if that pledge of the Government would only be kept.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

CORN RETURNS (NO. 2) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of any Expenses which may be incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Board of Trade under the provisions of any Acts of the present Session for amending the Law respecting the obtaining of Corn Returns.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) [PAYMENT OF LIABILITIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any liabilities which may be incurred by the Land Commission under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for making provision respecting certain arrears of rent in Ireland, and which, though primarily charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, that Fund is insufficient to defray.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act Amendment* (166); Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment* (167).
Second Reading—Lunacy Regulation Amendment* (160).
Select Committee—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* (60), nominated.
Committee—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 8)* (146); County Courts (Ireland)* (105–168).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (153).
Report—Lunacy Districts (Scotland)* (117).
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders* (157); Water Provisional Orders* (158); Poor Rates* (113); Somersham Rectory* (116); Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers* (143), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable John David FitzGerald, one of the Justices of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland, appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron FitzGerald of Kilmarnock, in the county of Dublin—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EXKING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.—QUESTION.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, I wish to ask him a Question with reference to the proposed visit of the ex-King Cetewayo to England. I had placed on the Table of your Lordships' House a Notice of a Question as to this proposed visit on Thursday next; but, as I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the ex-King should arrive in England before long, I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether he has any objection to lay on the Table any further correspondence and despatches on the subject, and what ground there is for the change of opinion of Sir Henry Bulwer in reference thereto?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It would have been far more convenient if
528
my noble Friend had given me Notice of this Question. If he had done so, I should have been able at once to give him the substance of the telegrams that have passed. If the noble Earl will repeat the Question on Thursday I shall then be able to answer him.

EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND)—THE ANNUAL REPORT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE,in rising to call attention to the Annual Report for 1881 of the Commissioners of Education for Ireland; and to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would consider the recommendations therein made by the Commissioners, with a view to giving effect to them by legislation next year? pointed out that these Reports had been brought under the notice of the House and the Government on former occasions; but nothing had been done in the way of legislation. The Board of Education in Ireland was appointed in 1814, and it dealt with property of considerable amount, which had been intrusted to them for educational purposes. The Board consisted of two kinds of Governors, ex-officio, the holders of high offices, and a number of Governors who were nominated; and these again were divided into two classes—those who resided in Dublin and those who resided in the country; but since the Board was originally constituted many changes had been made in regard to it. The ex-officio members were the two Archbishops of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and he believed that if only one Member sat in Parliament for the University of Dublin he also would be an ex-officio member; but as there were two Members of Parliament for that University, a doubt was raised as to which should be summoned, and in the end neither was. In connection with the appointments made for meetings of the Board great inconvenience had been felt. The ex-officio members did not attend. All of them had other important duties to attend to elsewhere. He might say that only one of that body attended—namely, the Provost of Trinity College. The rule was that the Chairman of the Board must be an ex-officio member, consequently if one

  529
  was not present, no meeting could be held. The Board had been equally unfortunate, until lately, with regard to the attendance of other members. It was pointed out by the Royal Commission that in 1877–8, out of 28 meetings called, no less than nine had to be put off through there not being a quorum of members present, which was rather a serious matter. As far back as 1858 the Commissioners of Education made various recommendations to which the attention of the Government was called in 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1875, 1876, and 1877; and, notwithstanding that, not a single step had been taken, he believed, as regarded legislation, on any of the points. One of the recommendations was that it was essential to establish a system of efficient inspection of schools under the control of the Education Board by one Inspector, or, if necessary, by a staff of Inspectors. The Education Board, in spite of an opinion given by the Attorney General that they had no power to pay an Inspector, did pay £100 to a Fellow of Trinity College. But that was done only once. There was no doubt that the Board had no power to appoint a regular Inspector. Again, the Commissioners recommended the consolidation of the schools, and their removal in certain cases to more suitable localities, an extension of the present power of appointing the masters which was now in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Archbishop of Armagh; that the Board should have power to regulate the salaries of the teachers and assistant teachers, and also the cost of instruction in all schools within their jurisdiction. Other recommendations were made by the Commissioners to make the schools under their control effective; and he did trust the Government would see their way to sanction legislation to carry out as many of these recommendations as they might deem necessary.
  THE EARL OF ROSSEsaid, he thought the recommendations of the Commissioners were entitled to more consideration than they had received at the hands of the Education Department, and he hoped to hear from the Government that the subject was likely to receive attention next Session.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he hoped the noble Earls (the Earl of Belmore and the Earl of
  530
  Rosse) would not measure the importance which he attached to the subject by the length of the remarks he should make upon it. He could, however, safely say that he was thoroughly satisfied that reform in the matter was greatly needed—reform both in the constitution and powers of the Commission. The noble Earl was quite right in saying that no one could be blamed for bringing the question forward, because the materials had been accumulating for years in the shape of several able inquiries and of the special and annual Reports of the Commission itself; and he was bound to say that those Reports had not received that attention which they deserved. That observation applied to the Governments with which his noble Friend had been connected as well as to the Governments with which he (Lord Carlingford) had been connected, and he therefore made that confession cheerfully. But as to what should now be done he could say this, at least—that the Government would direct their attention to the subject before the next meeting of Parliament; and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland hoped, in the course of the Recess, when he might be free to devote himself to such peaceful labours, to put himself in communication with the Commission, and to confer with his noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore) or the other Commissioners as to the present position and powers of the Commission, and as to the legislation that might be necessary to make the Commission efficient, and to make the schools themselves what they ought to be.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREthanked the noble Lord for his statement, which was perfectly satisfactory, and stated that the Commissioners would be most happy to confer with the Chief Secretary on the subject, with a view of ascertaining what was best to be done.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY (for Viscount MONCK)inquired of the Government, Whether there would be any objection to making public the papers, in modern European languages, which were set at the examinations for the Civil Services of England and of India during the year 1881? With re-

  531
  gard to India, modern European languages did not seem to be very necessary, and certainly had not the importance, and did not deserve to have allotted to them the same number of marks as should be given to the classical languages—Sanskrit, Arabic, and Persian. He thought there were several members of the Indian Council better qualified than the Civil Service Commissioners to set papers, or choose the subjects for examination for Indian candidates.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD,in reply, said, that his noble Friend would not expect him to enter into the question of Civil Service examinations generally; it had been decided long ago that it was beneficial to have such examinations. It had been decided that the Papers referred to should be published as an Appendix to the next Report of the Civil Service Commissioners.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877—Was presented by The Lord THURLOW; read 1a. (No. 166.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts; and for other purposes—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 167.)

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Sudeley.

  E. Powis.

  L. Monck.

  E. Cairns.

  L. Coleridge.

  V. Sherbrooke.

  L. Bramwell.

  L. Clinton.

  The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 5th of July next, at Three o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.