Sitting of 2 May 1887

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Cornwall (St. Austell Division), v. William Copeland Borlase, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Saving Life at Sea, appointed and nominated
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Walton -on-Thames and Weybridge Gas.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Solicitors (Ireland)* [247].
Select Committees—Butter Substitutes * [48], nominated; Merchandise Marks Act (1862) Amendment* [142]; Mr. Lane disch.; Mr. Peter M'Donald added.
Committee—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) [217] [Second Night]—R.P.; Colonial Service (Pensions) * [158]—R.P.; Truck* [109]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Accumulations * [31].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Police Force Enfranchisement * [240], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Limerick Water) * [236].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WALTON-ON-THAMES AND WEY-BRIDGE GAS BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months. The Bill is now very materially altered in the character of its provisions. It is a Bill for the extension of the capital of the Company and the extension of the district which is to be supplied. Since my Notice of opposition was put on the Paper, the promoters have abandoned the larger portion of the district which, at first, they asked power to supply with gas. They have also abandoned several exceedingly objectionable clauses of the Bill, and they have reduced the amount of capital which they asked Parliament to sanction. I cannot help thinking that it is a great pity this House should be called upon at all to deal with so paltry a question as that which is now involved. The Bill asks for power to take over two or three small districts at some considerable distance from their source of supply, but with scarcely any population, and districts which are already supplied with gas by a Limited Liability Company. There is really no reason whatever why the promoters should come to this House for the powers they now seek. They originally sought to enlarge their capital by £50,000, and they proposed to pay a sum of £15,000 for the Gas Works they then proposed to take over. They have now, in the face of the opposition which was raised to the Bill, abandoned their intention of taking over the greatest portion of those works; but they, nevertheless, ask for power to raise an increased capital to the extent of £30,000; and they propose to pay something less than £2,700 for the purchase of certain works which they say they want at Cobham. There can be no excuse whatever for asking for a large amount of additional capital, so far as the ordinary works of this Gas Company are concerned. They have already a very much larger amount of
    528
    capital than any other Company of a similar nature in proportion to the amount of gas they manufacture. As a matter of fact, this Company has, at the present moment, a capital three times in excess of those Companies which have similar work to execute. Its capital is 50 per cent, at least, above that of any other Company whose returns I have been able to examine, and who are doing a similar business. The inhabitants of the district, who are the consumers of the gas supplied by the Company, complain that they are now charged 5s. per 1,000 feet for the gas they get from the Company; and they contend that the Company have no right to attempt to supply other places, the population of which altogether is under 2,500, when the result is likely to be an increase in the price of the gas at present supplied to them. I hardly know how far the House will feel it right to consider seriously an application of this kind; but I think it is most monstrous that a Bill should be lodged, and the bulk of the clauses which were objectionable having been abandoned, the Company should still ask Parliament to authorize them to raise an addititional capital of £30,000, when all they say they want to lay out is a sum of £2,700 in the purchase of some other works where the gas is now charged at the rate of 6s. per 1,000 feet, they charging 5s. per 1,000 feet themselves. It is said that they have not sufficient capital to enable them satisfactorily to continue their existing supply. Propably one reason for that is that the Company have been carrying on a coal business, by which those who oppose the Bill allege they have lost money. That is a business which does not fall within the scope of the powers of a Gas Company at all; and I submit that they ought not to have any Parliamentary authority for carrying it on. I am loth, to occupy the time of the House with a matter which is really much too small for the dignity of a Parliamentary discussion. It may be urged that it is a matter which could be best settled in a Committee upstairs; but my point is that a question of such trivial importance ought not to be submitted to a Committee at all. In fact, the Bill is an impertinence in the face of the House. I bog to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
    MR. CONWAYseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. KIMBER: I hope the House will not consider that the hon. Member has made out any justification for not allowing this Bill, in the usual course, to go before a Committee, where all the details may be fairly considered. The course which the hon. Member is taking is, I think, entirely opposed to the ordinary Rules which govern the proceedings of this House and its Standing Orders. I believe it will be in the power of the promoters of the Bill to show, by the clearest evidence, if it is referred to a Select Committee, that the hon. Member has altogether disregarded the facts of the case. He asserts that the Company propose to acquire the power of raising an excessive amount of capital. Surely, that is one of those questions which the House by its Standing Orders has intended should be relegated to Committees. The Bill itself has already passed the Standing Orders. I am informed that in this respect the provisions of the Bill have been subjected to the scrutiny of the usual authorities before whom such Bills go, and they are satisfied that it is entitled to go before a Committee. At all events, it is only fair that the Company which has expended all its original capital in the execution of works ought to be allowed to raise something in addition in order to enable them to carry on those works satisfactorily. I noticed in the remarks of the hon. Member, that he stated nothing to show that this additional capital is not required.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the hon. Member pardon me. I think I did show that, because I said that other Companies are carrying on similar works upon one third, or 50 per cent less capital than has already been granted to this Company for the amount of gas they manufacture.
    MR. KIMBER: I admit that it is quite possible to pick out a bad case; but I do not think it is fair to select one or two of the worst cases that can be picked out for comparison, The hon.
    530
    Member has been good enough to give me a list of Private Bills of this nature, but I am supplied by the promoters with a list of a good many which tell the other way, and I think I should be able to show a great many instances in which Gas Companies have received the sanction of Parliament to a much larger extention of capital than is asked for in this case. Indeed, I have a list of other Companies which shows just the contrary result. In this case, there is very good reason why the House should not interfere in preventing the Company from raising the additional capital they ask for. The hon. Member has himself admitted that if this Bill is granted the cost of gas to the consumer of the district the Company propose to supply will be very considerably reduced. At the present moment, I believe their charge is 4s. 9d. per 1,000 feet.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Five shillings per 1,000 feet is the price set down in their statement.
    MR. KIMBER: Less discount—the actual price is, I believe, 4s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. I would also put this to the House, that the whole of the capital authorized by the Bill is actually to be raised without the payment of any premium to the shareholders. The whole of the new capital is to be put up to auction, and if a premium is paid that premium will not go into the pockets of the shareholders. These are, however, matters of detail with which I am almost ashamed to trouble the House. I would only add, that, upon my own responsibility, I can give the assurance that if the Bill is passed the public will derive great advantage from it. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to examine the Bill, and view it upon its merits, I am satisfied he will arrive at the conclusion that it will compare favourably with any other legislation of the same class, and that it is fairly entitled to be submitted to the investigation of a Select Committee.
    DR. TANNER: I should like to say one or two words with regard to this Bill. When it first came before this House for second reading it contained a number of provisions which I looked upon as objectionable, and I gave Notice of opposition to it. Since then I have had time to inquire into various points upon which, in the first instance, I was not satisfied, and

    531
    the result of the investigation was to induce me to withdraw that opposition. What I did then I am prepared to support now, and if the House come to a Division it will afford me a certain amount of pleasure to support the second reading of the Bill, having found out that I was wrong in having opposed it in the first instance.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): This Bill appears now in a very different form from that in which it was originally introduced, and it is promoted for a widely different object. Under these circumstances, I think the House ought to act in accordance with the principle which usually guides it, and allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee upstairs, by whom its details will be fairly considered.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 70: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Leave given to the Select Committee on Public Petitions to make a Special Report:—
Special Report brought up, and read as followeth:—

Public Petitions Committee.

  Special Report.
  Since the Special Report made by your Committee to the House on the subject of the alleged fictitious or forged signatures to the Petition from Haggerstone, in favour of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill, other Petitions in favour of the said Bill have been presented, the signatures to which appear to your Committee to be also fictitious or forged, and that, previous to the presentation of the Petition from Haggerstone, there were other Petitions relating to the same subject which excited suspicion.
  SIR. CHARLES FORSTER: Perhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I state the course we propose to adopt under the altered circumstances of the case. Since I presented the Report from the Committee on Public Petitions on Monday last, the matter has assumed a much more serious aspect. We cannot doubt, from the information we have received, that frauds of the most barefaced and extensive character have been perpetrated against the authority and privileges of Parliament. Under
  532
  these circumstances, the Committee on Public Petitions are prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that a thorough searching and exhaustive inquiry should be instituted into the matter. The Committee are prepared to institute that inquiry themselves; and, therefore, I have to move that the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Special Report of April 25 be discharged. At the same time, we think that it would not be wise for the House to part with the Petition. All I can say is, that I regret that this necessity should have arisen; but we shall endeavour to discharge, to the best of our ability, any duty which the House may impose upon us. I beg to move, after the discharge of the Order—
  "That the Report be referred back to the Committee, with an Instruction that they do inquire into the circumstances under which, and the parties by whom, the names appearing on the Petition referred to were thereunto appended."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Report be referred back to the Committee, with an Instruction that they do inquire into the circumstances under which, and the parties by whem, the names appearing on the Petition referred to were thereunto appended."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think that the words which have fallen from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Petitions fully justify the action I took last week in moving the adjournment of the debate. I was then of opinion that if the Order that the Petition should lie on the Table was then discharged, the House would have lost its hold upon that Petition. I hoped that the Committee might be able to do something to identify the person who had forged the Petition and the signatures attached to it, and to identify further the person who had employed him to forge the signatures. If I am right in my conjecture, the gentleman—if that be the proper term by which to designate him—who employed the person who forged this Petition is a gentleman whose name will appear whenever the Committee which is now sitting upstairs makes its Report with reference to the chargest against the Corporation of the City of London. He is the gentleman whose name appears in the City Accounts. I am not at

  533
  liberty, Sir, as you decided last week, to refer to any of the evidence which has been given before the Committee upstairs. My mouth is closed in that respect; but I am entitled to say that I am speaking now of a gentleman whose name appears in the City Accounts as having been employed by the Special Committee which is now taking action to obtain the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues. I am sure that I shall be able, and that the Committee on Public Petitions will be able, to ascertain that there are several Aldermen and members of the Corporation of London who have expressed an opinion that the obtaining of signatures by the payment of money is a praiseworthy proceeding under the circumstances. I believe the Committee will be able to ascertain that within the last three and a-half months one gentleman alone has received more than £400 from the City of London for procuring such Petitions. In addition to the particular Petition reported on last week, I believe the Committee will be able to ascertain that there have been other Petitions presented every signature of which is forged. One of them, I am told, contains such signatures as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Joseph Biggar, and W. H. Smith, of the Strand. Of course, it may be that at the address which is given of "the Strand" there is another Mr. W. H. Smith, or otherwise that signature will certainly turn out to be a forgery. It may be that "Joseph Biggar," described as a pork merchant, is not the hon. Member of that same name who has a seat in this House, or otherwise that also will turn out to be a forgery. If I am rightly informed, the Committee on Public Petitions will be able to ascertain that one of these Petitions which have been presented purports to be signed by no less than 13 race horses. I believe that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) has paid some attention to the development of mind in animals; but this is a new phase in that development, which has never come within my experience before. I do not think, however, that the matter is one upon which I ought to jest. The whole subject of Petitioning to this House is one which requires to be dealt with as a question of exceeding gravity. I undertook, four years ago, if an inquiry were granted on a Petition in
  534
  which I was very much interested, to prove that the signatures of children of two, three, four, and six months old had been attached to a Petition; and, even allowing for the spread of education since the Act of 1870, it certainly requires a strong effort of imagination to suppose that those signatures were genuine. The right of petitioning this House ought to be regarded as a right, and a duty exercised by citizens with a view of bringing before this House matters which they cannot otherwise bring forward; but if the canvassers for Petitions are to be paid for obtaining signatures, the whole thing is rendered corrupt at once. In many instances, I am afraid, means have been resorted to for manufacturing signatures, and the whole matter of petitioning has been reduced to a monstrous absurdity. I thank the Committee on Public Petitions for the action they have taken in the matter; and I believe that this is a very proper Petition upon which to take that action. I should not have interposed last week if it had not been that I wished to prevent the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions from contenting himself with passing the matter over by merely moving the discharge of the Order directing the Petition to lie on the Table, because I was anxious to see that in a case of this kind, where a deliberate fraud has been perpetrated on this House, the persons who have been guilty of that fraud should, if possible, receive the punishment they deserve. I trust that the Committee will have power to examine witnesses on oath, so that they may be prosecuted if they give false evidence, and that they shall also have power to send for persons and papers. I trust, further, that the Committee will not be content with the punishment of the tools, but that they will bring to the knowledge of the House those by whom such tools have been employed, so that they also may be punished.
  MR. WEBSTER: There is no one who more deplores than I do the fact that any Petition presented to this House should not be what it purports to be—namely, the Petition of the individuals whose names are attached to it. It must, however, be apparent to the House, as has been alleged by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), that not only are Petitions

  535
  got up on this particular subject upon one side which purport to be signed by persons who have not really signed them, but there is every reason to believe that in this instance there have been Petitions of a similar nature presented against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues. I would, therefore, express a hope that the inquiry of the Committee may be extended to all Petitions which may have been presented on this subject, and that the parties may be represented by counsel. I certainly think that the Committee on Public Petitions should be required to examine—and carefully to examine—all the Petitions which, have been presented against the Coal and Wine Dues as well as those which have been presented in favour of their continuance. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention a fact which occurred only on Wednesday last. On that day all the Metropolitan Members were flooded with Petitions against the Coal and Wine Dues. It appears that an individual named John Lloyd, who resides at Lancaster House, Savoy, and was at one time, and I believe is at present, the Secretary of the Municipal Reform League, was the collector of these Petitions, and I think some step ought to be taken to ascertain the character of those Petitions. Probably the Petitions to which I refer are called into existence by some organization—may be of coal merchants, or of gas company proprietors, or of some league of London Municipal Reformers. I trust that this inquiry will take place, and that it will be a searching one. I, for one, do not in the slightest degree deprecate its taking place; but I think it ought to be an equitable inquiry, and that it should deal with the allegations which have been made all round. I would, further, express a wish that the Committee also include within the inquiry, how it has happened that certain political meetings which have been held in the Metropolis have been recently broken up? All I can say is that at very many meetings I have addressed in London I have curiously enough recognized a small knot of the same faces and heard the same noisy voices who have done their utmost to disturb the proceedings, but have not succeeded in their object owing to the good sense of the majority of the audience. All that I ask is that the
  536
  inquiry, when it takes place, shall not be confined to one side, but that it shall include the facts equally on the one side and the other. With regard to the hon. Member for Northampton, the constituency he represents appears to be a very lucky one, seeing that the two hon. Members who represent it are not only able to attend to the wants of the 50,000 inhabitants of that town, but have ample time to devote to the affairs of other people.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Perhaps the the hon. Member will excuse me for reminding him that I am a citizen of London.
  MR. WEBSTER: I presume that the hon. Member speaks in this House not as a citizen of London, but as a Member of Parliament. [Mr. BRADLAUGH: Hear, hear.] I would venture again to express a hope that the Inquiry which, I presume, will be entered into, will be an inquiry all round, and that the Committee will carefully investigate not only how the Petitions in favour of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues have been got up, but also how the Petitions against almost every municipal institution in the Metropolis have been got up.
  MR. HOWELL: It seems to me that the matter before the House is the Petition which has been called in question by the Committee on Public Petitions, and not whether some other Petitions which may have been presented to the House are of a similar character. I say this without any fear as to the result of any investigation which may take place. I trust that the Committee will be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to who has paid for the getting up of these Petitions, and who has been at the bottom of the bogus meetings which have been held in the Metropolis in favour of the renewal of the Coal and Wine Dues.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: As a Member of the Committee on Public Petitions I should like to say, in reference to one observation which fell from the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) that at the meeting of the Committee to-day a decision was arrived at that the Inquiry should embrace the Petitions both for and against the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Perhaps the House, by its indulgence, will permit me to say that as the hon. Member for East St. Pancras has pledged himself to a knowledge of fictitious signatures attached to Petitions presented on the other side he will feel it his duty to attend the inquiry of the Committee and give evidence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order [25th April] for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions be discharged."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  MR. TOLLEMACHE: I understand that the Petition has been referred back to a Committee which already exists, and of which three form a quorum. I would suggest that in an important matter of this kind the quorum should be increased to five.
  MR. SPEAKER: If it is the pleasure of the House that the quorum should be increased, the House has the power of increasing it.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: I am certainly of opinion that it is of the utmost importance that the Committee should have the power to examine witnesses on oath.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order, That three be the quorum of the Committee, read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—DEFECTIVE WEAPONS— THE CITY OF LONDON ARTILLERY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the swords served out to the City of London Artillery are in the condition in which they were originally issued, and that, consequently, the explanation given of the failure of the Infantry bayonets, owing to structural alteration, does not apply to them; whether the worthless-ness is due to their manufacture from an
  538
  improper material—namely, Bessemer steel; and, who had the contract for; and, who passed these swords?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The sword bayonets of which the City of London Artillery are in possession are in the condition, so far as pattern is concerned, in which they were originally issued. No structural alteration has been made in them. An inspection of these sword bayonets is now in progress; and until it is completed it is impossible to say by whom these particular weapons were made, and who passed them. The manufacture of sword bayonets of the pattern referred to commenced in 1854, and went on till 1876. Large numbers were obtained from contractors at home and abroad, and many were made at Enfield. Those made at Enfield were all of "Firth's steel;" and the specification for those obtained by contract required that they should be of the best cast steel.
  In reply to Mr. HANBURY (Preston),
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid: The Report as to sword bayonets has not yet been received; but we are pressing for it. With reference to intrenching tools, it appears that a number of ordinary shovels issued to the 2nd Battalion of the East Kent Regiment were recently broken while being used by the troops. Opinions differ materially as to whether the usage to which these shovels were subjected was fair or otherwise. They have been returned into store; and the Inspector General of Fortifications has been requested to assist in thoroughly investigating the question.

THE PUBLIC FUNDS—PROPORTIONATE HOLDERS.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state what proportion the individual and joint holding (or personal holding) in the public funds bears to the personal holding of Trustees, excluding Government, Saving Banks, and other impersonal trust holdings?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): It is not possible to give the information asked for. The Bank of England do not recognize trusts, and have no means of distinguishing

539
between personal holdings and the holdings of Trustees.

LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—OUTRAGES AT DUTHIL, INVERNESSSHIRE.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received information of continued outrages, supposed to be instigated by persons in authority in the neighbourhood, being lately committed against the peace and comfort of the parish minister of Duthil, in Inverness-shire; and, whether a neutral and unbiased investigation has been, or will be, instituted?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I received a letter from the minister of Duthil some weeks ago, and at once ordered an inquiry, the result of which was communicated to me last week. Nothing of the nature of an outrage occurred on the occasion to which the letter referred. Some parties in the parish celebrated the result of a litigation, in which the minister of Duthil was on the losing side, by lighting a bonfire on a farm half a mile from his residence, and firing shots from guns at the same place; a torchlight procession was formed, which marched along the public road past the house in which Mr. Bain lives, cheering as they went. Nothing occurred calling for the interference of the Lord Advocate.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLE JOSEPH BENNETT.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Joseph Bennett, who, in August last, took a gun out of Waterford Street Barrack, Belfast, and discharged it at some persons at the corner of Cullingtree Road, thereby injuring one of them, is still doing duty at Belfast; whether he was made a prisoner at the time, and detained in barracks, with a view of placing him on his trial; and, whether he has been yet tried, or has been punished in any way for the serious offence then committed?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, this constable did, during the disturbances at Belfast in August last, fire
540
upon a stone-throwing mob without orders. He was not arrested, but was placed under supervision, on the advice of the medical officer, as it was quite clear from his demeanour that he was not accountable for what he had done. He has not since then performed any duty, and has been at intervals under detention as a lunatic. He is about to be discharged from the Constabulary as unfit for further service.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND ART— REPRODUCTION IN FAC-SIMILE OF ANCIENT MSS.—WELSH MANUSCRIPTS.
MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether sums of money have been granted from time to time out of the Estimates, towards reproducing in facsimile, and publishing, some of the most important of the ancient MSS. of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and, whether the Government will consent to give similar encouragement towards reproducing and publishing ancient Welsh MSS?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): It is the fact that between 1864 and 1881 sums of money have been provided, from time to time, in the Estimates, towards reproducing in facsimile and publishing some of the most important of the ancient manuscripts of England, Scotland and Ireland. It was found in 1884 that nearly £10,000 had been spent in the preceding 10 years on this work, while the receipts from sales were only £1,850. In view of this evidence of lack of public interest in the work, and for other reasons, the publication was discontinued; and I do not think that I can hold out any hope that a recommencement of the work will be made in favour of Welsh manuscripts.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SKIBBEREEN AND BALTIMORE.
MR. GILHOOLYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the fact that an industrial school at Baltimore, County Cork, is to be immediately opened, and that increased mail accommodation is required in the district, he will consider the desirability of having a mail car running daily throughout the year between Skibbereen and Baltimore?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES)in reply, said, that the mail car between Skibbereen and Baltimore already ran daily during the fishing season—that was to say, from the middle of March to the middle of July. During the remainder of the year the service was by rural postmen. He would cause further inquiry to be made into the question of continuing the daily car service throughout the year; but he thought it well to mention that, when the question was last considered, the correspondence was not sufficient to warrant the additional cost of such an arrangement.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE LOO ROCK, BALTIMORE HARBOUR.
MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that the Loo Rock, at the entrance to Baltimore Harbour, County Cork, is a serious and dangerous obstruction, he will consider the advisability of having it removed?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Loo Rock is within the limits of Baltimore Harbour, and is under the jurisdiction of the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Commissioners, who, by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament in 1884, have power to deepen and improve the harbour and its entrance. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.

ADMIRALTY—MARINE AND ARMY PENSIONS (BANDSMEN).
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a Marine pensioner is not allowed to serve in a band on board one of Her Majesty's Ships, without giving up his pension, whereas an Army pensioner is allowed to do so; whether he is aware that recently three bandsmen (pensioners) applied for service on board H.M.S. Royal Adelaide; that two of these were pensioners from the Marines, and known to the bandmaster as good musicians, whilst the third was a line bandsman; that the two Marines were unable to serve without giving up their pensions, whilst the Army pensioner was engaged, and is now serving and receiving his pension in addition to his pay; and, whether there are several
542
other cases of a similar kind; and what is the reason for this difference of treatment between the Marines and the Line?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD): The entry of Marine pensioners as bandsmen, or in other ratings, is quite exceptional. As a rule, the terms offered in such cases involve a surrender of pension while receiving full naval pay; but it is quite optional on the part of the pensioner to accept or refuse the proposals. In respect to the band of the Royal Adelaide, two Marine pensioners declined the terms proposed. An Army pensioner has joined the band, and does, as I am informed, continue to receive his pension from the War Office. I do not know of any other cases of a similar kind.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— THE VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANT.
MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If, having regard to the representations he has received as to the difficulties which would be entailed on the Volunteer Force if the capitation grant was made solely dependent on the attainment of an advanced standard in musketry, he has decided to adopt the recommendation of the recent Committee, and give an increased grant of 5s. in respect of those Volunteers who succeed in passing into the second class, without depriving those who are efficient in all other respects of the present grant of 30 s.?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have given full consideration to the representations made by various deputations from the Volunteer Force on the subject of the Capitation Giant, and I have been specially struck by one point which was urged upon my attention. It was represented that if the whole grant were dependent upon proficiency in musketry, Volunteer corps would sustain a loss in respect of uniform surplied to recruits who turned out very indifferent shots; and it was pointed out that there must always be a certain percentage of every battalion who cannot be brought up to the requisite standards I have, accordingly, obtained the consent of the Treasury to the following arrangements for Infantry Volunteers (the conditions as to the others remain-

543
ing as stated in my Memorandum):—In the first year of a Volunteer's service he will earn the full grant of 35 s. on condition that he is efficient, and hits the target 12 times in 60 shots; but in later years he will not earn this grant at all unless he is at least a second-class shot. If, however, he remains efficient in. drill, although not up to the second-class standard of musketry, he will be granted, for not more than two consecutive years, a capitation allowance of 10 s. After the two consecutive years all capitation will cease unless the Volunteer becomes a second-class shot.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— TEACHERS—RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENCE.
MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a young man who holds the position of national school teacher in Ireland is prohibited, by a Rule of the Commissioners of Education, from residing in the house of his father, who may happen to hold a publican's licence; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of altering such Regulation?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Under a Rule of the Commissioners teachers of National Schools are especially forbidden to keep public-houses, or houses for the sale of spirituous liquors, or to live in any such house. The Irish Government agree with the Commissioners that it would be very undesirable to make any alteration in this Regulation.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will the same Rule be made to apply to magistrates?
COLONEL KING-HARMANThe hon. and learned Member must put the Question on the Paper.

INDIA—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE PUBLIC CIVIL SERVICE.
MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Public Service Commission, which was presided over by Sir Charles Aitchison, and has recently taken a vast amount of evidence, was originally ap-
544
pointed simply to take evidence on the question of the admission of natives to certain branches of the Civil Service; whether the evidence taken was permitted, in effect, to embrace the entire question of a re-construction of the Civil Service of India, and among them the Uncovenanted Service; what number of representatives of the Uncovenanted Service were appointed on the Commission, and how many members of the Covenanted Service, and how many natives respectively, acted on the inquiry; and, when the Report of the Commission is expected to be ready?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The objects of the Public Service Commission wore originally defined in a Resolution of the Government of India, dated October 4, 1886. The statement implied in the Question is substantially correct. The Secretary of State has no official knowledge of the evidence taken; and is, therefore, impossible to express any opinion as to the correctness of the statement implied in the second Question. The Commission originally appointed consisted of six members of the Covenanted and one of the Uncovenanted Civil Service; six Natives, one of whom is a High Court Judge; and three other members, one of whom is Sir Charles Turner, late Chief Justice of Madras. By a Resolution of March 8, 1887, the Commission has been re-constituted for the purpose of more detailed inquiry, and I am unable to say when the Report may be expected.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE ANCIENT LAWS OF IRELAND.
MR. T. P. GILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether anyone is at present editing the Ancient Laws of Ireland; and, if so, who?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Professor Atkinson, LL.D., Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Grammar, and Lecturer on Celtic in the University of Dublin, is at present engaged on this work, under the direction of the Commissioners for the Publication of the Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CASE OF ROBERT COMERFORD, BELFAST.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the case of Robert Comerford of Belfast, Whether the Lord Lieutenant recently received a Memorial praying for the release of Comerford; and, whether he will state what answer has been given to the Memorialists?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; and the Lords Justices decided that the law must take its course.
MR. M'CARTANasked whether the matter would not be re-considered, in view of the fact that Comerford got in Ireland 29 months' imprisonment with hard labour for the commission of an offence the punishment for which in England could not exceed six months, and in view of the fact that he had now been over three months in gaol?
COLONEL KING-HARMANconsidered it was quite sufficient that this Question had been referred to the Lords Justices, who were a more competent authority on legal matters than he was.

THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE HELSTON BENCH— SENTENCE ON EDWARD WHITE.
MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward White, who was on Saturday last sentenced by the magistrates of Helston to one month's imprisonment with hard labour on a charge of embezzling moneys amounting to about 10 s.; whether the prisoner had been employed as a workman on a farm, and to supply with milk twice a-day some 100 customers, at amounts ranging from one halfpenny and upwards; whether he was unable to read or write; whether the evidence showed that the accounts between the prisoner and his employer had been left by the latter to depend on the prisoner's memory; that the prisoner explained the discrepancies complained of in such accounts as due
546
to default in his memory; that some of the accounts in dispute in the prosecutor's books were marked as paid in his own handwriting, though he denied having received the money; that all the witnesses for the prosecution testified to the prisoner's honesty; and the prosecutor himself admitted that his conduct was good while in his employ; whether the sentence of the Court was received with prolonged hissing and cries of shame; whether he will inquire into the case, with a view to the mitigation or remission of the sentence; whether it is the fact that the Town Clerk accompanied the magistrates when they retired to consult about their decision on the case; whether the prosecutor was until recently the managing clerk in the said Town Clerk's office; whether the prosecutor's brother at present acts in that capacity; and, whether both brothers gave evidence in the case?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, desired to point out to the House the inconvenience of hon. Members putting into Questions a large number of details, and a vast number of facts that only partially represented what took place in investigations before magistrates. In the case of Edward White, to which the hon. Member's Question referred, he had been sentenced to a month's imprisonment for embezzling 10 s. belonging to his employer. White was engaged by a farmer to deliver milk, receiving small sums in payment, and he had not accounted for his receipts. The Justices were unanimous in their decision, and he was not prepared to interfere with the sentence, or order a fresh inquiry.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION FOR AN ELECTORAL GUARDIAN—TUAM UNION.
COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Returning Officer was correct in holding bad a nomination paper in the am Union, in an election for an Electoral Guardian, because the nominator had signed himself Patrick O'Neill, his name on the rate book being Patrick Neill, but he being generally known by the former designation; and, if a nomination paper should be held bad in another Electoral Division of the same Union, because the date was written

547
the 2nd day of February, 1887, instead of the 2nd day of March, 1887?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES), in reply, said, he had been informed that the objections had been brought before the Local Government Board based upon the matters to which the Question referred, and these objections were being investigated. The Local Government Board was, by Act of Parliament, the authority for deciding questions of this character; and he would not feel himself at liberty to offer any opinion on the matter of law.

CUSTOMS BOARD—OFFICERS OF THE PORT OF LONDON.
MR. FORREST FULTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to an Order of the Board of Customs, under date 22nd February, 1887, abrogating the privilege accorded from time immemorial to the officers of Customs in the Port of London of communicating with each other by means of the official bags; and, whether he can explain the necessity for this restriction?
THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): It came to the knowledge of the Board of Customs that letters and documents which had no relation to public official business were frequently sent in the official bags to different parts of the Port of London. An order was, therefore, issued that no documents were to be sent in the bags unless they related to public official business. The Board see no reason for altering their decision.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK—LIMITS OF DEPOSITS—LEGISLATION.
MR. HOWELLasked the Postmaster General, If he is in a position to state whether the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill with the view of affording increased facilities for depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am already in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject to which the hon. Member refers. At present, however, I have hardly, as yet, received that sufficient evidence of a
548
desire on the part of hon. Members to support a measure to carry out the changes suggested to which I alluded in my reply to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) on February 17 last.

INDIA—DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZE MONEY FOR THE CAPTURE OF JHANSI.
MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any further distribution of prize money for the capture of Jhansi is likely to be made?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The whole of the prize captured at Jhansi has been already distributed.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—NOTICES AND POLITICAL CARTOONS.
MR. JOHNSTONasked the Postmaster General, If he is able to give any further information concerning the display of Freeman's Journal cartoons, side by side with Post Office notices, in the joint office of the Post Office and Freeman's Journal, Rathmines Road, Dublin; if there are other suitable places in Rathmines for a Post Office besides The Freeman's Journal office; whether the Post Office has, till recently, been held in various shops in the locality; and, if any steps have been taken to prevent the display of political cartoons side by side with postal notices?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In answer to a previous Question from the hon. Member, I stated that I had been unable to ascertain that in the Rathmines Road Receiving Office cartoons of The Freeman's Journal had been exhibited side by side with Post Office notices. It has since been ascertained that, inside the shop and close to the shop door, there is a raised screen on which cartoons have been exhibited, and sometimes, but not always, Post Office notices as well. Of this I informed the hon. Member in a letter I wrote to him on Thursday last; and I further informed him that explicit instructions had been given that, under no pretence whatever, were Post Office notices and cartoons to be again posted side by side. In Rathmines there are, no doubt, other places

549
suitable for a Post Office besides the shop in which it is now held. During the last four years the Post Office has been removed only once—namely, from No. 86A, in Rathmines Road, where the accommodation was insufficient, to the present convenient premises at No. 95. I may add that by the kindness of my hon. Friend I have had the pleasure of inspecting the cartoons, and it does not appear to me to be in any degree more offensive than ordinary caricatures; and the likenesses of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the noble Marquess at the head of the Government were, I thought, remarkably good.

FRANCE—ARREST OF MR. AUGUSTUS HARE, AT EMBRUN.
MR. NOBLEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information about the arrest of Mr. Augustus Hare, at Embrun, France, on 22nd instant, and complained of by him in a letter to The Times of 29th instant?
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKalso asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has seen a letter addressed to The Times newspaper, under date 27th April, by Mr. Augustus J. C. Hare, stating that the authorities at Embrun, in France, had refused to accept his British passport as an identification, "because it was not dated in the present year;" and, whether it is necessary for British subjects travelling abroad to renew their passports every year?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE) (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have read Mr. Hare's letter in The Times of the 29th ultimo. No complaint has, however, been received at the Foreign Office from him; but should any such complaint be made it will be at once inquired into. Ordinary passports for English travellers in France were abolished by the Emperor Napoleon, and we have never been informed that they were required, except temporarily during the Franco-German War. When passports are issued by the Secretary of State they hold good for an unlimited time, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned; but we are not aware how long their validity is recognized by the authorities of foreign
550
countries. When inquiries on this point are made at the Foreign Office it is customary to suggest that the holder of the passport, before setting out on his journey, should apply for a visâ to his passport from the Diplomatic or Consular authority of the country which he proposes to visit. A notice was inserted in The London Gazette of May 11, 1886, warning all travellers in France that under the provisions of a recent French law, "making sketches, drawings, or plans, in the vicinity of a fortress," rendered persons liable to fine and imprisonment. I can express no opinion upon the case, of which I know nothing, except from Mr. Hare's published letters.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKAre we to understand that in future it will be necessary, for the purpose of identification, for English travellers in France to have their passports viséd?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONI have no reason to believe that it is necessary for ordinary travellers; but I need not remind the House that in some countries there is some susceptibility about making drawings; and I think in the Eastern part of France just now that is only natural. At any rate, English gentlemen cannot be too careful in providing themselves with every safeguard against arousing suspicion.

LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—SENTENCE ON RIOTERS AT THE MARYLEBONE POLICE COURT.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the sentences of six months' imprisonment with hard labour passed on seven men by Mr. De Rutzen, at the Marylebone Police Court, on the 27th instant; whether Mr. De Rutzen is correctly reported to have stated, that he had intended to send the defendants for trial by a jury, but yielded to the application of Mr. Poland, the Counsel for the Treasury, to deal with the cases summarily; whether the defendants were charged with "riotous conduct and inciting the crowd to commit a breach of the peace," but were dealt with for assaults on the police; and, whether Mr. De Rutzen stated that one of the men was "the instigator of all the mischief;" and, if so, whether, at all events as regards the other six defen-

551
dants, he will consider the advisability of mitigating the sentences passed upon them?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): My attention has been called to the sentences. The seven defendants were charged with assaulting the police in the execution of their duty, as well as with riotous condnct and inciting to riot. Mr. Poland did suggest that they should be dealt with summarily on the charge of assault, and Mr. De Rutzen stated that he had no objection to that course, although, otherwise, he should have committed the defendants for trial. Mr. De Rutzen stated that the sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour was not too heavy for any of the defendants, and that it was wholly inadequate in the case of Williams, whom he designated as the leader and the person most to blame. I therefore see no reason for mitigating the sentences, against which an appeal lies. Notice of appeal has already been given on behalf of two of the defendants—Williams and Pole.
MR. JOHN MORLEYasked whether the prosecution had the sanction of the Home Office?
MR. MATTHEWSI have really not considered the question. There were several charges on the sheet; and the magistrate exercised his discretion as to whether he would convict on the graver or the lighter charge. I have not even considered whether the evidence before Mr. Poland warranted him in dropping the charge of inciting to riot.
MR. JOHN MORLEYAre we to understand that no Minister in this House is responsible for the action of Mr. Poland?
MR. MATTHEWSI am really not aware of the facts of this question, or how the prosecution came about. There might have been a police prosecution, or a private prosecution; Mr. Poland was not instructed from the Treasury. I will, however, inquire, and inform the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to know.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Pending this appeal, will these men be kept in prison?
MR. MATTHEWS: The law will follow its usual course.

OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS)—THE CHURCHYARD BOTTOM WOOD, HORNSEY.
MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for the Epping Division of Essex, Whether means can be devised by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for preserving for ever, as a public recreation ground for the population of North London, the Churchyard Bottom Wood, comprising 51½ acres, in Hornsey; and. whether, according to a Parliamentary Survey of 1647, it forms part of the "Woods and Waste" of the Manor of Hornsey, and is one of the few remaining portions of the old Middlesex Forest?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Gravel Pit Wood of 70 acres is already dedicated to the public as a gift by the Commissioners under a special Act obtained by agreement with the Corporation of London; and while prepared to sell the Church Bottom Wood, as shown by the offer made to the Local Board, they are not prepared to make any further gift. The Wood in question formed no part of the "waste" of the Manor of Hornsey, but was part of the Episcopal demesne land, and has been granted out on beneficial lease by the Bishops of London since the early part of the 17th century.

INDIA—HINDOO MARRIAGE LAW— THE PUNJAB CIVIL CODE.
MR. COZENS-HARDYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that in the Punjab Civil Code there is an express enactment that the Court shall not compel either party to complete a child marriage against his or her will; whether similar enactments are in force in other parts of India; and, whether the Government are willing to assimilate the law in Bombay to the law in the Punjab in this respect?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): There was such a prevision in the Punjab Civil Code; but that Code ceased to have the force of law in 1872. I am not aware that similar enactments are in force in other parts of India; and as to the rest of the Question I refer to the answer given to a similar Question on Friday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—RUSSIAN BILLS OF HEALTH AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
MR. CONYBEAREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why it is that German and Norwegian steamers can obtain Russian bills of health at Constantinople to the Black Sea ports on Sundays, while no British steamers are allowed that privilege; and, whether he will make inquiries or representations with a view to getting the same privileges accorded to British ships which are enjoyed by those of foreign nations?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Inquiries on the subject have been addressed to Her Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople, and, if necessary, representations will be made.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—STRIKE OF SHIPBUILDERS AT BELFAST.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported, that 6,000 employés of the Belfast shipbuilders are on strike; whether there is any cause in dispute except a claim on the part of the employés to have their wages paid every week, instead of every fortnight, as at present; and, whether the Government will consider of some means of bringing the dispute to a friendly termination, in view of the provision of the Truck Bill for weekly payment of wages?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It appears that there is at present a dispute between the shipbuilders and their employés at Belfast on the subject of the existing system of paying wages. The Irish Government, while trusting that an amicable settlement will be come to, have no power to interfere in the matter.
MR. SEXTONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has any objection to despatch an Inspector to Belfast, with the view of seeing whether a friendly arrangement could be come to?
THE SECRETARY OP STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)was un-
554
derstood to ask for Notice of the Question.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL—INVESTMENT OF FUNDS.
SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, What additional income will be available during the present year on account of the recent changes in the investment of the funds of the Greenwich Hospital; and, whether the additional income will be devoted to providing pensions for seamen of the Royal Navy?
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (CIVIL LORD): In the Greenwich Hospital Estimates for the present financial year an additional sum of £2,651 is provided for pensions to seamen and marines and for their widows and children. Further, the addition of £5,000 made last year to the actual expenditure on these pensions will be maintained. The full benefit to be derived from recent efforts to reinvest the funds of Greenwich Hospital will not be realized during the present year.

POST OFFICE—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS TO TASMANIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, At what rate per letter was, or will be, paid to the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Steamship Company, for conveyance of Mails per S.S. Coptic, which left Plymouth for Tasmania and New Zealand on the 23rd instant, and what rate was charged to the public per letter to Tasmania and New Zealand; and, is he aware that the steamers of this Company sail once a month, and make the passage in 38 days?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The usual ship letter gratuity of 1d. per letter has been paid to the commander of the Coptic for the mails which were put on board that ship at Plymouth on the 23rd of April for conveyance to Tasmania and New Zealand. The charge made to the public was 6d. per letter, which is uniformly the rate charged by all routes to Australasia, under a Treasury Warrant dated February, 1880. I am aware that the steamers of the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Steamship Company sail once a month. They make the pas-

555
sage to Tasmania, as I am informed, in from 39 to 44 days, and to New Zealand in from 44 to 49 days. I may, perhaps, add that no letters are sent by these private steamers other than such as are specially so super scribed by the senders, and that the number is very limited. If this course were not taken the Colonies would suffer the injustice of being deprived of a portion of their postage by the regularly subsidized mail packets which they now maintain themselves at considerable loss to the Colonial Revenues.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Arising out of that answer, am I to understand that though the British Post Office only pays 1d. per letter for the conveyance of these letters by fast and regular steamers to Australasian ports, the charge of 6d. per letter is made to the public?
MR. RAIKES: I have already answered that Question.

POST OFFICE—NEWSPAPERS FOR INDIA AND THE COLONIES—NONDELIVERY.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether about 25,000 newspapers, &c, for India and the Colonies are posted and not forwarded every year; in what manner are they destroyed; and, if any are sold as waste paper?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The exact yearly number of newspapers posted for India and the Colonies and stopped, either on account of insufficient payment of postage or of non-compliance with the conditions laid down by the Act of Parliament, cannot be stated; but it is thought that the number is not overstated by the hon. Member for Canterbury—25,000. Such of the stopped newspapers as bear the names and addresses of the senders are returned to them. The rest are consigned to the Stationery Office as waste paper, and are, I believe, sold.

SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD—TRAWLING IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Scotch Fishery Board have recommended that trawling be prohibited in the Moray Firth; and, when a bye-
556
law will be made carrying out such recommendation? The hon. Member also asked, Whether the First Lord of the Treasury can state why it is that an Order published on the 18th April was not known to the Scottish Office at the end of last week?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)(who replied) said: With regard to the subsequent Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that if this Question had been put to someone connected with the Scotch Department on the previous occasion when it appeared on the Paper, it would possibly have been answered on the day on which it had been asked. The Scotch Fishery Board have made a bye-law prohibiting trawling in the Moray Firth within certain specified limits. This bye-law has been duly advertised, and will, on the expiry of the statutory period, be transmitted to the Secretary for Scotland of confirmation.
MR. ANDERSON: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government will appoint someone who will really represent the Scotch Department in the House?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman has not been long in this House; but he is probably aware that the Lord Advocate does represent the Scotch Department in the House.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
MR. DILLONasked, When the next stage of the Irish Land Law Bill would be taken in the House of Lords?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The 12th of May.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
MR. BARTLEYasked Whether the First Lord of the Treasury could state on what day this Bill would be taken; and, whether he would so arrange that it would come on at an hour which would give an opportunity for discussing the important subjects of local taxation and local finance?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am

557
not able to say. It depends on the progress of Business.

PRIVILEGE—MR. HOLMES AND "THE TIMES" NEWSPAPER
MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a matter which I conceive to be a question of Privilege. I refer to certain statements which appeared in The Times newspaper on Saturday last reflecting on a right hon. and learned Member of this House in connection with the discharge of his functions in this House as a Member of the House. I will only read a small portion of the article. The words of which I complain are these—
"Common sense surely prescribed scrupulous adhesion to precedent in all non-essential matters; but common sense seems to be the very last quality that enters into the drafting of an Act of Parliament. After the sworn information wag settled Mr. Healy pounced upon the use of the word 'offence' in one line to indicate the thing called a crime in another. It is a small matter, perhaps; but anybody, except a draftsman of a Bill, would have taken one word or the other and stuck to it, were it only as a matter of symmetry. On this question of offence or crime an excited wrangle took place. It might very likely have taken place all the same had the Government held uniform language in the Bill; but they would, at all events, have occupied a more logical and consistent position. Then a little later the Attorney General for Ireland filled the Parnellites with exultation by blundering into something which looked very like an admission that the Bill creates new crimes. Every candid person, of course, knows what that maladroit official wanted to say, and ought to have said—namely, that the Procedure Clause of the Bill applies improved methods of detection to crimes committed before its passing; but does not punish as a crime any act that was not a crime when committed. But then they are not candid persoms with whom the Government have to deal; and one of the Irish Law Officers floundering helplessly among his own confused ideas and ill-chosen phrases was a spectacle which filled the Parnellites with the wildest delight."
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a painful matter for the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Holmes) to have to draw attention himself to so gross an attack upon him.
MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I consider that the hon. and learned Gentleman is trifling with the House. I conceive that there is no question of Privilege arising out of these words. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 217.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th April.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PRELIMINARY INQUIRY.
  Clause 1 (Inquiry by order of Attorney General).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Amendment which I propose to move is one which has reference to the application of this Bill by means of a Proclamation. It seems to me that we ought to know from the Government exactly to what portions of Ireland they intend to apply the measure. At the present moment we know that Ireland, with two or three exceptions, is peaceful and orderly, and my Amendment is to omit the words "in a proclaimed district." The clause, as it stands, says that—
  "Where the Attorney General for Ireland believes that any offence, to which this section applies, has been committed in a proclaimed district, he may direct a Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry."
  Now, I assert that the County of Kerry, the City of Londonderry, and the town of Belfast are the only places where offences, which might be brought under this Bill, have been committed during the last 12 months, and I think we are entitled to know from the Government exactly what the districts are which they have in their mind. We all know that Belfast has been the scene of bloody riots, almost bordering on civil war, for which, practically, no person has yet been brought to justice. We also know that in regard to the City of Derry the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) was petitioned against and unseated; and although he was not mentioned in the Report of the Election Judges as having been personally guilty of corrupt practices, several of his supporters were reported. We know, further, that in the County of Kerry there have been several crimes committed. What I want to know is whether the Government will

  559
  tell us exactly what portions of Ireland they conceive this Bill ought to be made applicable to, because, in my judgment, if these words are allowed to remain in the clause without some qualification, what might happen is this. The Government might proclaim the whole of Ireland outside the Province of Ulster; and, whenever any Catholics are murdered in Ulster, as usually takes places in the month of July, no Proclamation would be issued, and the stringent provisions of the Act would not be put in force. It, therefore, seems to me that we ought to know from the Government exactly what the districts of Ireland are which they propose to proclaim under this Bill. We know that in very recent years, under the Crimes Act, a murder of a most brutal character was perpetrated on a Catholic in Ulster, Philip M'Guire, but no inquiry was held, and the perpetrator escaped the consequences of his crime. Then, again, in the City of Derry, although the Government were represented there on a recent occasion by a learned Queen's Counsel, and an investigation was held into certain charges of bribery and corruption which had taken place in that city, and which led to the unseating of the Member who had been returned to represent it in Parliament, the Government have never since made the slightest attempt to make use of the information brought to their notice, nor has the Public Prosecutor pursued an investigation into the corrupt practices which took place at that election. The Government have simply allowed the whole matter to drop. Now, it seems to me that if the provisions of this Bill are to be honestly administered, and were I, unfortunately, to come under its provisions, we should find some gentleman occupying some distinguished position in connection with the Government who would be eager to prosecute me. I am, therefore, induced to ask what the regions of the country are which the Government intend to occupy, and whether the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to be put in force in Kerry and Clare, while Belfast and Londonderry are to be exempted? Let us know, at any rate, what are the districts which are to be proclaimed, and what counties are to be proclaimed. What are the districts to which the Government propose to apply this measure? In order to give the Government an op-
  560
  portunity of answering the question, I will move that the words "in a proclaimed district" be struck out of the clause; and if that is done, I shall then propose to move to insert the words "Kerry, Londonderry, and Belfast," and I shall give my reasons for including the two latter places.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 7 and 8, leave out the words "in a proclaimed district."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'in a proclaimed district' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked for information which he is perfectly well aware it is not in the power of the Government to give. We have laid down from the beginning that we mean the provisions of this Bill to apply to those parts of Ireland, and those parts of Ireland only, where the existence of such crime may be found to exist as will justify its application. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me now to leave out the words "in a proclaimed district," and to insert in the Bill other words to bind the Government as to the districts in which the Act will be put into operation. The hon. and learned Member must see that that Amendment and the consequent Amendment are inconsistent with the whole scope of the measure.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am certainly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to tell us whether Belfast is to be proclaimed or not. There have been more people killed and wounded in Belfast in the last six months than in all the rest of Ireland during the last six years. A Royal Commission, appointed by the Government themselves, has inquired into the matter so far as Belfast is concerned, although no attention has been paid to their recommendation. I want to know if the Catholics of Ireland are to go unprotected when this Bill is passed; and whether it is to be applied only in the interests of the landlord party? I shall certainly press for information in regard to Belfast. There is in that town a large body of people with arms in their hands who have committed murder and outrage, but have been acquitted with

  561
  applause in an open Court. Although, in one instance, a soldier and a policeman wore killed, and in a second a policeman was seriously wounded, no person has, as yet, been hanged. I wish to know whether, under the circumstances, the Government consider that we ought to allow our co-religionists in the North of Ireland to be killed and wounded by their friends with impunity? I think we are fairly entitled to know what parts of Ireland are to be proclaimed under this Bill; and whether in that blood-stained region of Belfast, where 30 people have been killed, Her Majesty's troops shot at, and members of the Constabulary murdered, the criminals are to escape scot free?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What the hon. and learned Member has a right to know, and what I will at once tell him, is that the Government will exercise perfect impartiality between different creeds and different parts of Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has informed the Committee that the Act is not intended to apply to any part of Ireland except where crime exists. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: And disorder.] The right hon. Gentleman did not use the word "disorder" in his speech. It may be said that there was disorder in Mayo when the tenants would not pay Lord Dillon's rents. The right hon. Gentleman says that the provisions of the Bill will be applied impartially. This is not the first time nor the twentieth that we have listened to declarations of that character. When the Act of 1881 was being adopted in this House, the late Mr. Forster, who, I venture to feel, was quite as much entitled to credence as the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, declared over and over again that the Act was not to be applied in Ireland, unless necessity required its application. But what happened? Before the Act had been in force for a month, it was applied in the City of Dublin for the purpose of arresting me. There was no disorder or crime there. It has never been pretended that there was agrarian disorder, because it could not be said that there was anybody who happened to hold farms in the City of Dublin. Dublin was utterly free from disorder of any kind. Nevertheless, Dublin was
  562
  proclaimed for the sole object of arresting certain Members of Parliament. We know from experience when Acts of this kind are passed, that, notwithstanding the declarations of the Government at the time, the powers which such Acts give will be used unscrupulously by the Executive. The Chief Secretary has said that the provisions of the Bill will not be applied to any part of Ireland until there is such an amount of crime as to justify its application. Will the Chief Secretary take the trouble to look over the condition of Ireland, and say what are the districts in Ireland in which, at present, he considers there is a sufficient amount of crime to justify the application of such a measure at all? Is it not true that outside the Counties of Kerry, Clare, and Western Limerick absolute peace prevails in Ireland? I think we are in a position to make a tremendously strong case against taking away the liberties of the whole people of Ireland, and leaving them at the mercy of the Executive Government, because in a remote corner of the country there is a state of disorder. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend raises a most important issue. I think we have a right to protest test that because in a remote corner of the country there is a state of disorder we ought to take away the liberty of the whole nation. I have here the quarterly Returns of crime and outrage in Ireland for the last two quarters, and I find that in the Province of Ulster the crimes, leaving out of view threatening letters, were exactly six from September up to December. In the Province of Leinster, the largest and most populous Province in Ireland, the number of crimes for the winter quarter was eight in the whole Province. Is it not a monstrous thing that you should pass a Bill, which is to apply potentially to the whole of Ireland, when a condition of things exists as to absence from crime in regard to which you cannot find a parallel for years? In the Province of Connaught, in the same quarter, there were 29 crimes, excluding threatening letters; and, although that is not as favourable a condition of things as in Ulster and Leinster, it nevertheless shows an absence of crime which has been unparalleled for years. In those three Provinces there does not exist a shred of crime in justification for

  563
  a measure like this, and yet the Government are proposing to place in the hands of the Executive of Ireland a power to apply this Bill to all those Provinces—to three-fourths of the population of Ireland, who have been free from crime for years past. I come now to the Province of Munster, and the condition of things there is this—In Munster, excluding threatening letters, there were 44 serious crimes; but, deducting the outrages in Kerry and Clare, there were about 13 in the whole Province. Those were the figures of the winter quarter. I come now to the quarter ending with March 31, and in reference to both quarters I contend that an unanswerable case exists for exemption from the provisions of a Bill like this. I think the Government are bound to stand up and show that some case exists for such a sweeping measure before they can hope to get the consent of the Committee to it. In other measures which have been passed by Parliament, the provisions of the Act have been confined to special districts in Ireland. Take the case of Westmeath. Disturbances had existed there; but did the Government seek to include the whole population of Ireland? Nothing of the sort. They showed that a bad condition of things prevailed in Westmeath, and they passed the Westmeath Act. Why should we not have now a Kerry and Clare Act? The last quarter's Returns show a slight increase, but a very trifling increase, over the previous quarter, which has not usually been the case, and which is, undoubtedly, to be attributed to the change in the policy of the Government in reference to Ireland. Instead of putting pressure on the landlords, as they did in the winter quarter, with excellent results, the Government entirely changed their policy, and the consequence was that there was a considerable increase in the number of evictions. In the Province of Ulster the number of serious crimes during the last three months was 10. When I call them "serious crimes" I ought to tell the Committee that many of them were of an absurdly trivial character. In the Province of Leinster there were 21, and when I look down the column of serious crimes included in this Return, I find that such crimes as murder, conspiracy to murder, firing at the person, and assaulting the police, are all absolutely blank. The crimes included
  564
  in the Return are almost all of a trifling character, a good many of them consisting of injury to property. As the Government absolutely refuse to give us any information as to the nature of the crimes described under the head of injury to property, we can only conjecture that they are absolutely of the same character as the injury to property specified in the Blue Book of 1881. There is already standing on the Notice Paper a Motion for a Return of crime and outrages; but the Government have blocked it. In Leinster I cannot find that within the last three months there have been, more than seven or eight outrages of a serious character. In the Province of Connaught, during the same period, there were about 38; but several of the counties were absolutely free from serious crime. In the Province of Munster, outside the three counties I have already named, other than threatening letters, the outrages numbered 26. In the three counties of Kerry, Clare, and Limerick, they numbered 48; but if those three counties are eliminated from the Return I maintain that the condition of Ireland is such as not to afford a shadow or shred of excuse for this Bill. I contend that the Government are bound to act on the precedent of the Westmeath Act, and to confine the operation of their Bill, at any rate at this stage, to the three counties in which there does happen to have been this small modicum of excuse for it.
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) will press this Amendment and force it upon the Government, or, possibly, we may have a repetition of what occurred under the Coercion Act of 1881. By that Act, certain districts were proclaimed in Ireland, where there was certainly not a sufficient amount of crime to warrant their being proclaimed at all. Districts were proclaimed then not for the purpose of putting down crime, but for the purpose of putting down political agitation. In the County of Wexford the Return of crime made in 1881 showed that there had been 56 outrages in that county, and upon that Return Mr. Forster had the county proclaimed; but it is an important fact that when the Return came to be analyzed it was found that, leaving threatening letters out,

  565
  there were not more than eight or nine of what might be called crimes in the whole county. Nevertheless, that county was proclaimed, because the Government wanted to do then what they want to do now—not so much to put down crime or outrage, as to attack their political opponents and to put down political demonstrations. The Chief Secretary has mentioned crime and disorder. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by disorder? It does not take a vivid imagination to picture what may be considered disorder in the eyes of the Irish Executive and their officials. Disorder, in their eyes, may be the holding of political meetings, the delivery of political speeches, and the carrying on of the National movement generally. That is what the right hon. Gentleman means by disorder, and it is evidently what he is anxious to recognize by this Bill. That it is agitation he desires to put down is evident from the fact that he refuses to state to what district the Government propose to apply this Coercion Act in Ireland. I maintain that it is impossible for the Government to prove that there are more than two or three districts throughout the whole of Ireland where crime is in existence to such an extent as to warrant coercion, or the application of any exceptional law. Whatever hope the Government may have of inducing the people of this country to support them in coercing districts where crime unfortunately does prevail, I trust they will not have the sympathy of the country when they are endeavouring to put upon the whole of Ireland a severe and arbitrary measure of coercion which is not warranted by the existing state of crime. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, said that while he could not accept the Amendment he would give an assurance that the Bill would be impartially administered. We, unfortunately, judging by the experience of the past, cannot accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the Government of Ireland, as a sufficient guarantee that this Bill, if it is enacted for the whole country, will be impartially administered. I represent a district in the Province of Ulster which is most happily free from crime; but, still, it is a district where Orangeism extensively prevails, and out of the 84 magistrates of the county 82 of them
  566
  are persons who, if not actually Orangemen, still are in distinct and avowed sympathy with the Orange Organization. I could give many other instances, and I hope, in the course of a few days, to put a question as to the administration of justice on the part of certain magistrates in the County of Fermanagh. I could cite instance after instance where, in the most flagrant possible manner, the magistrates have put justice altogether aside, and have given their decisions directly in sympathy with the spirit of the Orange Organization. Surely this is proof enough that it will be most outrageous, and even fatal, to place a Bill of this description in the hands of Resident Magistrates with Orange sympathies all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance that this Bill will be used impartially in the Catholic districts of the South, and in the turbulent Orange districts in the North. A right hon. Gentleman who is not now a Member of this House, but who formerly held the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, wrote a letter a short time ago to the newspapers, in which, from the knowledge he obtained during the time he held the Office of Chief Secretary, he gives his opinion as to how this Bill will be used. He does not hesitate to express a strong opinion as to the character of the men who compose the Executive Government in Ireland, and who would practically have the sole administration of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I refer—Sir George Trevelyan—cannot be accused by hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House, and who represent Irish constituencies, of any desire to exaggerate the facts of the case. I would ask the Committee to look at this Amendment, not from the Irish Members' point of view; do not let them be influenced by what we say, but let them take the words of Sir George Trevelyan, who, with his practical experience of the Office of Chief Secretary and of the working of a Coercion Bill in Ireland, has given his testimony that it will be impossible for the Government to administer the Bill impartially among Orange partizans of such notoriety as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary

  567
  (Colonel King-Harman). These are some of the reasons which induce us to look with the greatest alarm and suspicion on the attempt of the Government to saddle the whole country with a Coercion Bill, and these are the reasons which have actuated my hon. and learned Friend in proposing this Amendment. We ask the Government to say distinctly, before the Bill leaves the House, to what districts of Ireland its provisions are to be applied, and to give some guarantee that Orange rowdyism and Orange crime will be put down in the North of Ireland, just as much as any crime which happens to be in existence in the South of Ireland. I cannot possibly conceive that a more reasonable request could be made by the Irish Representatives in this House than the request which they now make—that instead of saddling the whole of the country, which is admittedly free from crime, with this Coercion Bill, the Government, if they are intent on passing coercion at all, should content themselves with passing it upon those districts in the South and North of Ireland where, unfortunately, crime and outrage do prevail. As has been pointed out already, there has been more blood shed, more outrage, more lawlessness, and more real disorder in the Orange districts of the North of Ireland than in any number of districts in the South and West, and without the same provocation. If the Chief Secretary wishes to make the country believe that the Government are serious in their attempt to put down crime, he will rise in his place and say that they will rest satisfied with proclaiming those districts in which crime does prevail, and that they will not attempt to coerce or proclaim an entire country for the misdeeds of a few portions of that country. The Irish Representatives, whether Protestant or Catholic, protest against this infamous attempt to impose a law of this kind upon the people of all the constituencies; and I believe that if every Member representing an Irish constituency in this House were to protest in the same way against his constituents, who are free from crime, being coerced, he would only be discharging his duty towards the constituents who have sent him here to defend their liberties.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I would suggest to the right hon. and
  568
  learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. HOLMES) that he might make a concession to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The Attorney General is the person who will put the provisions of this Bill into operation, and he knows, if anybody knows, what the districts are in which it will be necessary to enforce the Act. He knows, if anybody knows, what the districts are, if this Bill had already become law, in which he would feel it his duty to give the Resident Magistrates the power of putting this 1st clause in motion. What I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should do now is that he should name or insert by name in the Bill these specific districts which he says require the operation of the Act, and that he should do so without prejudice to the general power of proclamation contained in the Bill. By doing so he would lose nothing whatever which the Bill proposes to give him; but he would enable the House to judge, from the list he would submit, how that impartiality which the Chief Secretary has promised in regard to the application of the Bill is likely to be exercised. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to name the places which he says require the application of such an Act, the House will then be able to see whether the list he gives is a fair and impartial list or not. If it is fairly impartial, the House will then be able to prognosticate the spirit and manner in which the Act is likely to be carried out.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The only reply which the Chief Secretary has vouchsafed to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is that he has already explained the scope and spirit of the Bill. Now, as far as I can see, the scope and spirit of the Bill are aimed at crushing out the Nationalists, and allowing the Orangemen to do precisely as they like. An Orangeman may commit murder, but a Nationalist may not grin through a horse collar. The Chief Secretary has given a pledge that the Bill will be administered impartially; but by whom is it to be administered? It is to be administered by gentlemen who, if they wish to be so or not, cannot be impartial, so bound up are they with the Orange faction in Ireland. They have

  569
  their feelings so strongly on the side of the Orange faction, that they cannot and will not be impartial. Who is to be the judge whether the Administration is impartial or not? They themselves, in a proclaimed district, are to be the judges of their own impartiality. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford claims that the Bill should be limited in its operation to those parts of Ireland where there is a certain amount of crime. You limit the Bill to Ireland; you do not apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom, and yet you are always telling us that there is no distinction between Ireland and the United Kingdom. Surely your reason for limiting the operation of the Bill to Ireland is because there is exceptional crime in existence there, and none in the United Kingdom. Therefore, you ought to limit the Bill to those parts of Ireland where you assert that exceptional crime prevails. The reason why I have risen now is this—whenever one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench gets up and speaks upon the Bill, he always enlarges the scope of it. We were told that the Bill was directed against crime. We are now told that it is a Bill against crime and disorder. I always imagined that disorder could only be proved by the fact that there is crime; but the right hon. Gentleman implies that there is some distinction between crime and disorder. Before going further, I think we ought to understand from the right hon. Gentleman—I am sorry to disturb the sleep of the just in which he is indulging—but I think we ought clearly to understand what he means by disorder, irrespective of crime. We do not know under what conditions the district may be proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant. We had some idea that he might take a right or a wrong view; but we thought he would only proclaim a district where there was a considerable amount of crime. We are now told that he will not only proclaim a district where there is crime, but one in which there is only disorder. The vague distinction which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman is a most important one, and before we pass this clause we ought to understand clearly on what conditions, and on what conditions alone, Her Majesty's Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a very few moments. I rise for the purpose of replying to the observations which have been made upon the Orange Organization and upon the City of Belfast by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think that the attack which has been made upon the City of Belfast by the hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to be allowed to be passed over in silence by anyone who has the honour of representing that constituency. The constituency which I represent has had nothing to do with any of the disturbances which have occurred in Belfast; but I cannot sit quietly here and hear the members of the Orange Society characterized as "blood-stained." I know we are accustomed to hear the Orange Organization calumniated.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It would not be relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee to discuss the question of the Orange Organization.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I did not propose to discuss the Orange Organization at all, nor have I any desire to say anything further. I only wish to repudiate the calumnious charges which have been made against the Orange Society by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond). Having done so, I will now resume my seat.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I trust the Committee will appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman to protect the Orange Organization.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether, having been called to Order myself, and having obeyed the ruling of the Chair, the hon. Member is regular in continuing the discussion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: The object of the Amendment is to limit the application of the Bill to certain districts in Ireland. As representing one of the counties which come within the category of disturbed districts, I think I am taking a proper position when I invite the Government to name that county in the Bill in order that the

  571
  causes of its disturbed condition may be investigated and, if possible, removed. I have no objection to see crime punished; but I think it is only justice to ask, concurrently with the Proclamation of a district and the punishment of crime, that the application of the provisions of this Bill should be limited to those districts where disturbance and disorder have prevailed. If Her Majesty's Government are desirous of getting at the root of the disorder in these disturbed districts, I think it will be found that it is attributable to the aggravated forms of injustice to which the tenants and others in those districts have been perpetually subjected. I thank the Chief Secretary for the word "disorder" which he has introduced into the discussion. It raises a new issue altogether, and I should like to know what meaning is attached, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government, to the use of that word "disorder?" We have from the beginning announced plainly, fairly, and above-board, that we have no objection to the Bill reaching crime in Ireland; but what we do object to is, that the Government should take a partizan and political view of what they are pleased to call "disorder," but which relates to transactions which it has been found necessary from time to time to resort to in order to prevent a worse and more general description of disorder. What we are afraid of is that the Government may direct the operations of their Bill towards that description of disorder, while they allow more serious forms of crime to escape scot-free. Hon. Members ought not to dismiss altogether from their minds the important facts brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to the condition of the counties in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asserts that there is a state of disorder and lawlessness. My hon. Friend showed that there has been scarcely a single crime committed from boundary to boundary during the time covered by the Chief Secretary's statement. There is no use in mincing the matter. I will, however, endeavour to keep within the observance of Parliamentary Forms; but we believe that, from the highest to the lowest, the public officials of Ireland are saturated with Orange prejudices and with landlord antipathies to the people, and that,
  572
  consequently, there will be a scandalous maladministration of this Bill, which will not be limited at all in its evil effects by any assurance of impartiality that may given by the Chief Secretary. We place no value upon the right hon. Gentleman's assurances. His own mind may be of a more even character. Perhaps he is not so intimately associated with Orangemen and the landlord class in Ireland. Over and over again the same assurances have been given; but as long as Dublin Castle is Dublin Castle; so long as the Resident Magistrates get their instructions generally from Dublin Castle, stating the character of the persons they are to try, and virtually directing them what to do—so long as that system of government prevails in Ireland, it is in vain to depend upon any assurances, however sincere they may be at the time of their utterance in this House. I think there is now a distinct issue raised on this Amendment, and before we proceed further with the debate I think the Committee ought to insist upon some interpretation on the part of the Government of what meaning they attach to the word "disorder." Does the Chief Secretary mean to say that the County of Mayo is in a state of disorder, and that this Bill will be applied to that county? Is he unwilling to lay down a cast-iron rule that the Bill is only to apply to certain districts in Ireland? What we want to know from the Government is, whether they will tell us, taking Ireland as it is now, if the Bill were passed to-night, to what districts they would seek to apply it to-morrow? Surely that is not asking too much. The Government say they want to put down exceptional crimes—such as murder, firing into houses, mutilation of cattle, and Moonlighting. Are they of everyday occurrence in Ireland? If this Bill wore now passed; if all opposition ceased at once; if we grant to the Government the whole measure, will they tell us, in return, what the districts of Ireland are to which, in their present condition, they would apply the provisions of this Bill?
  COLONEL HUGHES: I think it is most important that we should have regard to the words we are discussing. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "in a proclaimed district." But the speeches

  573
  which have been made referring to those words have not made the matter at all clear. The words "in a proclaimed district," as they are applied in the section, have reference to where the offence is committed. On Friday the attention of the Government was called to the specific construction that might be placed on this phrase as limiting the clause to offences committed in a proclaimed district after the district has been proclaimed. I understood the Attorney General for England to say that if there were any doubt as to the meaning of these words the Government would look into the matter, and, if necessary, change them. The junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and others, also asserted that these words are meant to apply to offences committed in a proclaimed district after a district has been proclaimed under the Act. It has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the words "in a proclaimed district" should be struck out, in order to insert the names of three counties. I quite agree that those words ought to be struck out, but not for the purpose of inserting the names of three counties. Such a course would prevent the provisions of the Bill from being applied to any other part of Ireland in the future except those three counties. It would be very bad legislation to put down the mischief and crime which may arise in three counties, and to leave all the rest of Ireland open to the operation of the National League. My objection to the words as they stand is, that they would limit the operation of the Bill to offences committed after the passing of the Bill, and after a district had been proclaimed. It has been clearly declared by the Government that the Bill is intended to apply to crimes which have already been committed, and offences which have already taken place, but which have not yet been discovered, and I understand that an inquiry is to be made into past offences as well as into future offences. Therefore, I take it that these words will have to be struck out, and I was in hopes that some Member of the Government would state how it is intended to correct what appears to me to be a verbal inaccuracy. I understand the phrase to mean that "where the Attorney General for Ireland believes that any offence to which
  574
  this section applies has been committed." Then, taking out the words "in a proclaimed district," he may direct a Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry under this section. If the clause were altered in that way, it would apply to every district now proclaimed, and to every district which may be proclaimed hereafter. It appears to me that we are really dealing with a verbal inaccuracy, and I think it would greatly facilitate the understanding of the discussion of this Bill if hon. Members would have a copy of the measure actually in their hands at the time the discussion is going on.
  MR. CLANCY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has devoted the greater part of his speech to an explanation of what everybody in the House understood. He objects to any limitation of the clause, and, no doubt, would prefer to see it very much extended. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has asked us to trust to the impartiality of the Executive in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Now, we refuse to trust to the Government, or to their impartiality. We cannot do so. The Government is a Government of partizans, and the latest accession to the ranks of the Ministry shows that the Government are partizans, and also Orange partizans. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is a member of every landlord organization in Ireland. He is a member of the Orange Society; he has advised the Orangemen of Ireland, in a remarkable speech, to keep their hands upon the trigger. I presume that the opportunity for doing so will arise under this Bill. At the present moment there is ample evidence in our hands that the Government now engaged in the administration of the law in Ireland is a landlord Government to the backbone and spinal marrow. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tells us to trust to the impartiality of the Executive. What happened at the last Winter Assizes? In Sligo, when Catholic peasants evicted from the Clanricarde estates were indicted, not a single Catholic was placed upon the jury; but in Omagh no one but an Orangeman was set to try the Orange rioters of Belfast. It is an undoubted fact that the Government in the West of Ireland packed juries to convict Nationalist prisoners; whereas,

  575
  in the North of Ireland, they refused not only to pack juries, but to exclude the most notorious and well-known partizans from the jury-box. Under such circumstances, to endeavour to induce us to believe in their impartiality is to endeavour to impose upon our credulity. Take, again, the attitude of the Government on the subject of Boycotting. When the Boycotting is committed in Ulster by Orangemen we do not hear a word about it. Take the case of the Rev. Mr. Macaulay—a Presbyterian Home Rule minister. Mr. Macaulay is a venerable man, who has done great service to religion in his district. He has not only been subjected to Boycotting, but has been subjected to outrage. His property has been destroyed by the action of Orange partizans; but the Government have refrained from condemning either the Boycotting or the outrage. Indeed, they have gone to the extent of refusing to post up in the police barracks of the country notices offering a reward for the discovery of the perpetrators of the outrage on his church. The reverend gentleman offered a reward himself; but this Government of impartiality, which denounces Boycotting in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, which weeps bitter tears for imaginary cases of Boycotting like that of the midwife, has not a word to say as to the Boycotting, intimidation, and violence practised towards the Rev. Mr. Macaulay. How are we to trust a Government like that? There is another illustration I should like to bring under the notice of the Committee. We have heard within the last few weeks a good deal of condemnation of Irish juries, and of verdicts which they have either found or refrained from finding when the Crown have desired to secure a verdict of guilty. The jurymen have been held up as men who have wilfully disregarded their oaths; but we have not heard a word of a remarkable case which occurred a short time ago in the County of Fermanagh. In that case, some Orangemen were brought before a local Bench of Magistrates which was entirely composed of Orangemen. They were charged with firing with intent to kill at a body of Nationalists. Of course, in the view of Orangemen that is no crime at all, or next to none. Nevertheless, the Crown considered it so grievous an offence that they had the offenders brought before
  576
  the local magistrates. The charge was completely proved, but the Orange magistrates sot the culprits scot-free, declaring that there was no stain upon their character. The Attorney General had this matter brought under his attention, and he himself deprecating the gross partizanship displayed by the local Bench of Magistrates, and directed a re-hearing of the case. The result, however, was the same, and the magistrates acquitted these men once more, although they were plainly guilty of a most heinous crime.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is clearly wandering from the Question before the Committee in commenting upon the conduct of a local Bench of Magistrates.
  MR. CLANCY: I was trying to make good my charge against the Government that we can have no confidence in their impartiality.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out, in the case to which he was referring, that the Attorney General for Ireland had acted impartially.
  MR. CLANCY: I was proceeding to remark, Sir, that, notwithstanding the action of the Attorney General, Her Majesty's Government took no further steps in the matter, but disregarded the plain duty they had to perform in the most disgraceful manner. They might, if they could have done nothing else, have dismissed those Justices from the Commission of the Peace, but they did absolutely nothing to mark their disapproval. I cannot understand the equity of an arrangement by which, no matter how heinous an Orange offence is, it goes altogether unpunished; whereas, for the commission of the most trivial offence, a Nationalist is severely punished. I refuse to trust to a Government of that kind. I assert that the Government is a Government of partizans from top to bottom. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is a member of the Orange Party. If there is anything Lord Londonderry understands, although I do not think he understands much, he comprehends the principles and rules of the Orange Society, of which, I believe, he is a Past Master. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is a sworn member of the same Body, and he is convicted in this Blue Book—in the evidence given before the Cowper Commis-

  577
  sion—of having robbed his tenants in the most disgraceful manner.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not speak of a Member of this House in those terms.
  MR. CLANCY: Well, then, I would put the matter this way—that the Parliamentary Under Secretary has had his rents reduced by 54 per cent, and that he has been convicted by the Land Courts in Ireland of having fleeced his tenants to that extent; and, no doubt, he would have continued to got those iniquitous vents if the Land Court had not stepped in. I am not permitted to characterize conduct of this sort as I deem right, but I know what is said of it out-of-doors.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is clearly irrelevant. He is not referring to anything which attaches to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman as a Member of the Government.
  MR. CLANCY: I am referring to the antecedents of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I say we fully expect him to pursue in Office the policy which he has pursued when out of Office. I think it would be ridiculous to ask the people of Ireland, or any Member of the Irish Party, to regard other than as partizans in the highest degree a Government composed of such men as the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I rise to Order. I want to know whether, upon the words "in a proclaimed district," the hon. Member is in order in entering into the conduct of individuals?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question, "in a proclaimed district," involves the use of the discretion of the Government. I understand that the hon. Member is speaking of the trust which ought to be reposed in the Government.
  MR. CLANCY: I am impugning the impartiality and bona fides of the professions of the Government. I maintain from its connections, and from its acts in this House and in the country, it will remain a partizan Government to the end, as it has been in the past. By a subsequent part of this Bill, the Lord Lieutenant is to proclaim districts in conjunction with the Irish Privy Council. I am told that the Judges do not take part in these administrative acts, although they are Members of the Privy Council; but that they put their signatures to Proclamations merely as a matter of form, being required to do so
  578
  as Members of the Privy Council. But there are men in Ireland who do take an active part in the business. Who are they? Here, again, we come upon the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) who is a Member of the Privy Council. [Cries of "Order!"] I believe I am entitled to speak of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman by his name as a Member of the Privy Council. Then there is another Gentleman, Mr. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh, the head of the I. L. P. U., and a man who also has had his rents cut down very considerably within the last few weeks. Then there is The O'Conor Don, another convicted rack-renter, who is not now a Member of this House, and, therefore, I may speak of him as I realty feel. These are the gentlemen who, acting in conjunction with Lord Londonderry, will have the power of putting the provisions of this Bill in force. I say that it is ridiculous and preposterous to expect, for a moment, impartiality from a Body of this kind, composed of Lord Londonderry, the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, who has had his rents reduced by 54 per cent, Mr. Arthur Mac Murrough Kavanagh, who has robbed his tenants time out of mind, and The O'Conor Don, who has done likewise. I therefore protest against giving to the Executive in Ireland any discretionary power whatever. We believe that the Bill will be used solely for landlord and Orange purposes; we believe that Orange outrages in Ulster, however heinous they may may be, will go unpunished, and that the slightest offences perpetrated in other parts of Ireland by persons supposed to be Nationalists, will be made the ground for applying to those districts this most atrocious Bill, which I hope the Liberals and Radicals of this country will do their best to stop before it proceeds further.
  The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel King-Harman) and Mr. GLADSTONE rose together. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian gave way.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make a brief personal

  579
  explanation. I have no desire to say anything in regard to the Bill on its clauses. The matter of my rents has been repeatedly called in question by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, and it is simply in order that the House may understand the real state of the case that I rise to make a few remarks. I have been accused of being a rack-renter. I think that the House knows generally what is the meaning of Griffith's valuation. That valuation was made in the year 1854, at a time when prices in Ireland were lower than they are now. It was avowedly made by Sir Richard Griffith 25 per cent below the letting value of the land—[Cries of "No!"]—and it was distinctly stated that it was made as a basis of rating, and not of rent. In 1881, a large body of my tenants came to me, and asked to have their rents reduced to Griffith's valuation. I was then able to point out to them what I wish now to point out to the House—that in 1881 the rents on a very large property were within £100 of Griffith's valuation, which, as I have stated, was 25 per cent below the letting value of the land, and I had no opportunity, even if I had desired it, afterwards of raising the rents. If, in 1881, I was able to show that my rents were 25 per cent below the letting value, I can hardly be called a rack-renter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are you an Orangeman?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I apprehend that, although the courtesy of the Committee has permitted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a personal explanation, I am not expected to say a word on the subject of that explanation, because it would be abusing the patience of the Committee to attempt to do so. But I desire to refer to the Motion under discussion, and likewise to one or two points which have arisen in that course of the debate—to the important suggestion which has been made, and the demands which have been preferred in the course of the debate. Now, with respect to the Amendment, I would venture to make this observation. The words in the clause are "in a proclaimed district," and I find that they occur again and again before any power to proclaim a district is given. That may, or may not be good drafting of a Bill, or it may have been better to have
  580
  given power to proclaim before anything was said about a proclaimed district. It is, however, too late now to rearrange the clauses of the Bill; but I think it would not be satisfactory to the Committee to have a discussion of this nature raised again and again on the term "a proclaimed district" each time it arises. I would suggest whether it is convenient to proceed with the discussion on this basis. Assuming that this is a Bill which is to go through Committee, it is probable that there may be something in the nature of a power of proclaiming particular districts, and that the hon. and learned Member for North Longford himself recognizes. The words "in a proclaimed district" are in the nature of limiting words, and the simple omission of them would leave a power applicable to the whole of Ireland. Would it not, therefore, be best to leave the words "proclaimed district" at present, and when we come to the proclamation of districts in Clause 5, and the definition of the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant, then to raise the points which may be properly raised as to the conditions on which the Proclamation should take place? Other matters have occurred which I think require notice. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has demanded from the Chief Secretary for Ireland to know whether Belfast is to be included in the proclaimed districts, and the right hon. Gentleman considered that he gave a sufficient answer when he said that all districts would be treated on a principle of perfect impartiality. I own that, after what has occurred, that answer is insufficient. The right hon. Gentleman himself has referred to particular parts of Ireland as being parts of Ireland the condition of which justified their inclusion in the present Bill. He described them, I think, as including one third of the area of Ireland, and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) said they included only one-sixth of the population. After that was done, and Clare, Kerry, and other counties had been pointed at as requiring the action of a Bill of this kind, it became perfectly lawful, regular, and legitimate to ask whether Belfast was in contemplation. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has, with great propriety, felt it to be his duty to say something on behalf of his constituents, and he

  581
  has said what is to be regarded with credence, that the bulk of the people of Belfast regard the outrages in that town with horror. Is there not exactly the same thing in other districts? Are we not bound to make the same presumption with respect to persons who have not been guilty of crime and outrage in the districts which it is proposed to proclaim? If the apology is good for Belfast it is good for other places. Well, there is no doubt the conduct of certain persons in Belfast has stained the character of Ireland more than it has been stained by conduct in any other part of Ireland. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to ask what is the view the Government take of the case of Belfast. I shall never call this Bill a Bill for the repression of crime, for that is a most untrue description; but I suppose that crime is included in the purview of the Bill, and, if so, I think that hon. Gentlemen sitting for Irish constituencies are quite justified in pressing for some explanation as to the scope of the Bill, and what view the Government take of the state of things in Belfast—a state of things which, from recent accounts, has not oven yet reached its long wished for and right determination. Another point I wish to notice is the further explanation given by the Chief Secretary to-night of the scope of the Bill. It was a small Parliamentary incident which might not be noticed in any report of the debate, but which it is well to record. When the hon. and learned Member for North Long ford spoke of the Bill as a Bill for the repression of crime the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland called across the Table, enlarging that description, "crime and disorder." Now, that is a very important fact. We have heard that crime and offences are synonymous, to the great surprise of many persons in this House; but now we know from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself that he is not satisfied with the description which has been given of the Bill—that it is a measure for the repression of crime. We now know from his mouth that it is something else, which, although it may be bad and evil in itself, is not crime, but is, nevertheless, included in the scope of the Bill. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can retract what he has said; but I wish to notice the words of the right hon. Gentleman as a full jus-
  582
  tification for the protest which has been made. When the Bill was originally introduced there was a disputable proposition—namely, that the Bill was directed, not simply against crime, but that it did include something which is not now crime, and did aim at connecting it with offences with a view of establishing a certain state of things in Ireland. I accordingly support the demand that we should know what view the Government take in regard to the case of Belfast. I see the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in his place. I see that he has defined the purpose of a Coercion Bill as a Bill only to be proposed in the case of exceptional crime and outrage. In Belfast there is, undoubtedly, exceptional crime and outrage—[Cries of "No!"]—and I think we ought to know whether occurrences such as these in Belfast are what are not within the purview of the Bill. We do not want to be answered by the reply, "we cannot tell whether this state of Belfast will be continued." There may be perfect tranquility in Belfast; but that is equally true of all the other parts of Ireland specially referred to. Therefore, I hope the Government will throw a little light upon the subject. I think that the general question intended to be raised by the Amendment certainly requires full discussion.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The suggestion the right hon. Gentleman has made as to the most convenient time for the Committee to discuss the question of the proclaimed districts is, I think, an admirable one; but he has greatly destroyed the value of that suggestion—that is to say, its practical value, for the purpose of bringing this discussion on, by raising two points which might easily be developed into points of great controversy, and lead to protracted discussion. I will venture, on one of those two points, to make a few remarks. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the Chief Secretary for using and suggesting the word "disorder."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Adding it to crime.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL; Yes; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has distinctly made himself a party to the insinuation which has been freely developed from below

  583
  the Gangway, that the Government intend to apply this Bill to the South and South-West of Ireland, leaving Ulster free from the operation of the Bill. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman could not see that the use of the word "disorder" in connection with crime will bring Belfast under the operation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has totally destroyed the value of the suspicion which he laid the Government open to by the attack he has made upon them for having added the word "disorder." There have been riots and disorder in Belfast—[Mr. CLANCY: Murder.]—there have been riots and disorder in Belfast, mostly of a serious character, and undoubtedly accompanied with loss of life—[Mr. CLANCY: Murder.]—accompanied by offences which may be regarded as murder; but the law has been asserted and vindicated in Belfast by Belfast juries.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has anyone been hanged?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I say that law and order have been restored in Belfast, and a great number of the rioters have been brought to justice. Many persons have been convicted, and one of them who was accused of murder was convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced, I think, to a number of years penal servitude. The son of the same man would have been convicted had it not been proved that he was innocent. These men were tried, and it cannot be asserted that they did not get a fair trial, nor can it be asserted in regard to the riots in Belfast that the ends of justice have been in any way defeated. The law has been asserted in Belfast as well as it could have been asserted in any other great town in the United Kingdom where popular passion and excitement run high. Yet the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition seriously contended, and asked the Committee to believe, that there is no analogy whatever between the deplorable riots which have taken place in Belfast and the Moonlighting which have taken place in Kerry—Moonlighting outrages for the Commission of which not one single person has been made amenable.
  An hon. MEMBER: That is not true.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman assert that the juries in the North of Ireland have failed to do their duty in regard to the cases of disorder which have occurred in Belfast? [Cries of "Yes!"] Those cases are of a totally different character, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should gravely stand up and compare the diabolical outrages which have even been denounced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in Kerry, Galway, Clare, and parts of Limerick and Cork with the riots in Belfast? Are they to be put on the same footing as the riots which constantly occur in Belfast, but which are invariably suppressed and put down, and which are invariably followed by the ends of justice being vindicated? It is a most deplorable thing that the right hon. Gentleman should use all his great influence, and his great abilities to confuse and mislead the Committee, and by pitting the diabolical outrages in the South against the Party riots in Belfast, that he should attempt to condone and apologize for such outrages.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, who has just sat down, very naturally feels some what sore on the subject of Belfast. Of course we have been told that "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." I have not risen, however, for the purpose of entering into any historical incidents in the career of the noble Lord. I wished to correct him in regard to a matter of fact as to the way in which law and order are administered in Ireland. We have been told by the noble Lord that law and order have been as well administered in Belfast as in anywhere else throughout the whole world, and yet we remember that some 300 or 400 people have been maimed for life, 35 murdered, and that not one single person has been hung, and only some two or three have been punished. The noble Lord complains, and the same calumny has been repeated by a right hon. Gentleman in a region which is not easily accessible in this House—namely—the Islands of Orkney and Skye—the noble Lord complains that the murderers of the Curtins and others have not been brought to trial and punishment in Kerry. The Government allow these Lies and calumnies to go forth when

  585
  the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) at the present moment can jingle in his pocket the guineas which he got for convicting those persons. So far from that statement being true, I assert, as a matter of fact, that within the last six months whole batches—I believe to the number of 40—of the Kerry Moonlighters have been brought to trial, and 20 within my own knowledge were convicted at the last Winter Assizes. And yet, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says, that as far as he is aware, there has not been a single Moonlighter convicted in Kerry.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): As far as I am aware, there has not been a single Moonlighter convicted in Kerry. It was only by changing the venue to the County of Cork that convictions were obtained.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may mislead the Committee; but he cannot mislead me. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was a change of venue. There was no change of venue at all. What happened was this. The ordinary law enables the Government to transfer the trials of certain persons at the Winter Assizes to certain places. I know the City of Cork jurors, and I say this, that persons who convicted these Moonlighters were Nationalists almost to a man. Furthermore, I declined brief after brief and refused to defend these men, although some of them may possibly have been innocent. No Nationalist member of the Irish Bar defended them, and they were convicted. These facts are as well known to the Government as they are to us. Furthermore, when a Conservative Administration was last in Office, Lord Salisbury boasted in the House of Lords of the success of the Government in these transactions. Lord Spencer retorted that it was by means of Winter Assizes, and Lord Salisbury replied "Yes; but it was by the ordinary law."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That was in 1885.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; and in 1886 as well, and it was under the ordinary law. Contrast this with what has happened, on the other hand, in Ulster. The right hon. and learned Attorney General himself knows well
  586
  that, as a matter of fact, he denounced the Tyrone juries, and said that they were worse than those of Kerry. I challenge him to contradict that statement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is always a straightforward and honourable opponent, and I observe that he does not contradict that assertion. What happened was this—the Walkers were put on their trial. There was no Winter Assize in Belfast; but, at the Tyrone Assizes, Judge Lawson, who, God knows, is no friend of ours, told the jury as plainly as possible that they were perjuring themselves, that they could not convict the prisoners of manslaughter, although they were willing to bring in a verdict to that extent, but that the offence was one of murder. Time after time the jury came back into Court; but they refused to convict, and then the Government transferred the trial back to Belfast—back to the scene of the labours of these prisoners on the Shanklin road. They did it in spite of the Report of the Commission which is contained in the Blue Book, and now before the House—a Commission presided over by one of the English Judges, supported by an Irish Queen's Counsel—Mr. Delapore Trench—and subscribed to by Mr. McHardy, a member of an Orange Society. That Report states—
  "We are sorry to add that certain persona, Laving great influence in Belfast, thought proper, at various periods during the riots, to indulge in language, written and spoken, well calculated to maintain excitement at a time when all men of influence should have tried to assuage it. Mr. Cullen, the Divisional Magistrate of Ulster, and others, laid before us certain specimens of these utterances, some of which we print in Appendix D, and which speak for themselves. We feel it our duty to draw special attention to a letter of the 4th day of August, 1886, written by Mr. De Cobain, Member of Parliament for one of the Divisions of the town—a letter the publication of which the Mayor of Belfast most properly brought under the notice of the Government. Another cause of the continuance of the riots was the unhappy sympathy with which, at certain stages, the well-to-do classes of Protestants regarded the proceedings of the rioters. At one stage of the riots it seemed as if the greater part of the population of the Shankhill district united against the police. This is the more to be regretted, as it was on all sides admitted that no more valuable aid could have been given to the police than that afforded by respectable and influential people of the localities in which the troubles arose."
  In illustration of this charge the Commission called special attention to a

  587
  letter published by Mr. Do Cobain, winch was brought under the notice of Government; but, from that day to this, be attempt has been made to deal with the origin of these riots. It was with that Report staring them in the face that responsible and influential persons in Belfast sided with the rioters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland sent these Walkers back to be tried in Belfast. He did so well knowing in his heart that these men would not be convicted, because they were Orangemen. I assert this as a fact—that no Orangeman in Ireland has ever yet been convicted on a trial for murder. I will give an instance to show the manner in which this particular trial was "rigged." The trial took place when Her Majesty's late Government were in Office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the ordinary course, Mr. Walker, the Liberal Attorney General, and The M'Dermot, the Liberal Solicitor General, would have had the conduct of the trial, which ought to have gone naturally to the Summer Assizes. But the Liberal Government were likely to leave Office, and, therefore, it was arranged to have the prisoners returned for trial at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), would be the Law Officers of the Crown. Whereas, in the ordinary course, the trial would have been conducted by Mr. Walker and The M'Dermot; it was so arranged that the men were returned for trial at a time which was too late for the Summer Assizes in Belfast. If this fact is not within the knowledge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, I can assure him that it is notorious to the Bar of Ireland. Without the slightest necessity for that remand, the case was remanded so as to throw off the trial until the following Assizes. In moving my Amendment, I referred to the state of Derry. I presume that bribery and corruption will be an offence under this Act, seeing that is a misdemeanour. Now, the grossest bribery and corruption were proved to have prevailed in the City of Londonderry at the last General Election, when the hon.
  588
  Baronet who now sits for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) was returned. It has been asserted that everyone connected with the candidature of the hon. Baronet, when the inquiry was about to take place, fled from Derry, and no summons could be served upon them. One or two of them were fortunately dragged up; but no person to my knowledge, although gross corruption was clearly established, has been prosecuted in connection with these charges, nor was even an attempt made to ascertain where these men were. The recognized agents of the hon. Baronet—the whole gang of them—were shown to be absolutely steeped in corruption; but not one of them has been punished. The Crown Prosecutor sat in Court mute, and yet the Election was given in favour of my my hon. Friend (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) on a single charge of bribery. Of course, my hon. Friend could have gained no advantage from continuing the investigation; but the whole burden of going on with it, and probing it to the bottom, rested with the Government. In Belfast the Government took a different course, and prosecuted an unfortunate cripple; but in Derry, where the bribery was of a most extensive character, every individual concerned in it got away absolutely unscathed. I have now explained the reasons why I have proposed this Amendment; but the moment I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. H. Smith) suggest that it would come in bettor at a later period, I rose to offer to withdraw the Amendment. Of course, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) naturally desired to make an explanation and to continue the debate, and, therefore, I gave way. If the Government desire that the Amendment should be withdrawn, I have no objection to withdraw it; but I hope they will take advantage of the opportunity, in order to give the Committee some explanation in regard to the points which have been raised. For my own part, I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and after this explanation I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. HOLMES: The Committee will not be surprised, after the speech which has been delivered by the hon. and

  589
  learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), that even at the risk of continuing the discussion for some little time longer, I should desire to say a few words. I will ask the permission of the Committee to commence my observations by an allusion to myself personally. It has been said more than once, in the course of this and other discussions, that I am an Orange partizan. I wish to assure the House, at the very commencement of my remarks, that there is probably no hon. Member of this House less connected in any way with Orangeism than I am. I am not an Orangeman, nor have I had any connection of any kind, either by family or otherwise, with that society. It so happens that, as I believe, I am not even personally acquainted with three Orange-men, save and except hon. Members of this House, some of whom, for aught I know, may be Orangemen.
  An hon. MEMBER: What of Colonel King-Harman?
  MR. HOLMES: I may say, further, that in the course of my career I have often taken opportunity publicly to express my strong abhorrence of these party demonstrations, which, in my opinion, both on one side and the other, have been highly detrimental to the prosperity and happiness of the North of Ireland. I trust the Committee will excuse my having, under the circumstances, made this personal reference. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has stated that it was by the operation of the ordinary law in the South of Ireland that the Kerry Moonlighters were brought to justice. I took the liberty of interrupting him, because the statement he made was not precisely in accordance with the facts. As far as my knowledge goes, there has not been a single instance, in the last three or four years, of a Kerry Moonlighter having been convicted in Kerry, No doubt, at the Winter Assizes in 1885, there was a large number of Kerry Moonlighters convicted in the City of Cork. The hon. and learned Member says that they were convicted under the provisions of the ordinary law, but the hon. and learned Member will bear in mind that that only arose from the circumstance of the offences having been committed at a particular season of the year, and, therefore, the trial was trans-
  590
  ferred from one county to another. But I would ask, whether, if the Government is of opinion, from past experience, that it is necessary to have the venue changed from one county to another, they are not justified in asking the legislature to make an alteration in the law? Would not an alteration in the law be justified if under the present law a man who committed an offence in February or May got Scot free, whereas if the offence had been committed in September or October, he would probably have been convicted at the Winter Assizes? It is to meet this difficulty that the Government asked the House to enable a change of venue to be made.
  An hon. MEMBER: To the Old Bailey.
  MR. HOLMES: In regard to the Winter Assizes, in the year 1886, the hon. Member for North Longford is wrong when he states that 40 Moonlighters were convicted in the City of Cork.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not say so—I said 20.
  MR. HOLMES: It is not for me to criticize the action of Cork juries, but I believe that there was nothing like an extensive conviction of Moonlighters at those Assizes.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee how many persons were tried, and how many were convicted?
  MR. HOLMES: I cannot go through the cases individually now. All I assert is that the number of Moonlighters convicted at the Cork Winter Assizes was very small. I now come to the observations which the hon. and learned Member has made in reference to the Belfast riots. In the first place, I may say that the hon. and learned Member is under a serious misapprehension as to the facts of the case. He says that not more than six or seven of the rioters were successfully prosecuted. I can inform the hon. and learned Member that by summary conviction more than 100 were brought to justice, and, at the Winter Assizes, about 66 were convicted and sentenced to heavy penalties. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that only about six of the rioters were brought to justice. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to say that the results of this Winter Assizes at Tyrone were unsatisfactory, and that I

  591
  myself declared that Tyrone juries were worse than Kerry juries. The hon. and learned Member seems to imagine that because I listened to that allegation and remained silent, that, therefore, I assented to it. Now, I always think that when an hon. Member is making a series of statements it is better to wait for a proper opportunity of reply instead of throwing out interjectional observations. Not only did I never make such a statement, but no such idea ever occurred to my mind. I have stated over and over again that the juries at the Tyrone Winter Assizes did their duty with wonderful fairness and impartiality. There were three serious cases of murder tried at the Tyrone Assizes. In one case—the case of a Catholic indicted for a wilful murder committed in Lurgan—there was no doubt whatever that the offence was wilful murder, but the question was whether the prisoner was the person who committed it or not. The charge was one of murdering a Protestant during an Orange demonstration. The Tyrone jury acquitted the prisoner.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the jury disagree with the Judge's charge? What was the name of the man?
  MR. HOLMES: It was the first case heard, and it was immediately before Donelly's case. Donelly was not tried for wilful murder at all. The case I refer to was a case of murder, and the sole question, as I have already stated, was whether the prisoner committed the murder or not.
  An hon. MEMBER: The name of the prisoner was Hart.
  MR. HOLMES: I presume the hon. Member does not suppose that I have any intention to misrepresent the facts of the case. I was in Court myself, and it cannot be supposed that for a moment I would represent that the result of my case was different from what it actually was. As I have said, the verdict in that case was one of acquittal, the prisoner charged being a Catholic, and the charge being one of murder. The second case was that of the murder of Head Constable Gardner. What occurred in that case was this—the jury disagreed. I was under the impression when I read the depositions in connection with the case that there was a substantial case, but when I heard the evidence given
  592
  in Court it seemed pretty clear to me that there had been a mistake on the part of the constable who identified the prisoner. This prisoner was subsequently acquitted, and one of the most distinguished judges on the Irish Bench—Lord Justice Fitzgibbon—on the second trial, which took place at Belfast, said that it was impossible for the jury to come to any other conclusion. That was one of the cases in which the jury disagreed at the Winter Assizes. The third case was the only case, as far as I am aware, which occurred at the Winter Assizes at Tyrone in which there was a failure of justice. It was the case of the elder Walker, who was indicted for the murder of a soldier named Hughes. The jury stated that they were willing to find a verdict of manslaughter, but they refused to find a verdict of murder. Now, I admit that in that case the jury ought to have found a verdict of murder on the admitted facts, and that was the only case tried at the Tyrone Assizes in which there was any failure of justice whatever. Catholic rioters were acquitted and convicted, and Protestant rioters were again and again convicted. I believe that more than 40 were convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment. I wish to impress these facts upon the Committee that in one or two cases where a Catholic was put upon his trial, and where there seemed hardly to be a doubt as to the proof of the offence, yet the jury yielded to the persuasion of counsel, and he was acquitted. Having read the informations that were laid against the prisoners, and all the depositions, I have had a full opportunity of knowing whether the juries did their duty or not, and I am sure that if the hon. and learned Member for North Longford had had the same advantage he would agree with me that the only single failure of justice during those trials, which extended over three weeks, was the case to which I have referred—namely the case in which the elder Walker was placed on his trial for murder, and in which the jury refused to convict him of anything but manslaughter. Although it has been charged against the Government that the Walkers were tried at Belfast, I can assure hon. Members that the honest desire was that they should not be tried there. But it was impossible to prevent it. I myself had a strong objection to that course being taken in

  593
  consequence of the excitement under which the people of Belfast were labouring at the time. In face of the fact that on former occasions Belfast rioters were tried before Belfast juries, and that the juries did their duty, and that we could not make out a case under the existing law to induce the Court of Queen's Bench to change the venue, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the Crown to remove the case elsewhere. I admit, however, that if we had had in force an Act of Parliament such as we now ask the House to pass, the case would have been tried with a different venue. The charge is that the conduct of this prosecution was taken out of the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown under the Liberal Government by delay, and placed in the hands of the Law Officers of the present Government. But, Sir, if the prisoners had been returned for trial at Belfast it would have been absolutely necessary for the Law Officers to have had the case tried at Belfast at the time the riots were going on; and the Law Officers who represented the Government of that day did go down to Belfast for the purpose of conducting these and certain other cases—other cases connected with the riots which had previously been returned for trial. But what did they do? They applied to the Court that each of the cases should stand over to the Spring Assizes upon the ground that the excitement was such that it was impossible to get a fair trial. [Mr. CHANCE: The Court of Queen's Bench made the order, then.] But something more with reference to that—the Law Officers of the Crown, although they applied that the case should stand over to the Spring Assizes, did certainly not seem to be of opinion that when that excitement had cooled down the case could not be properly tried at Belfast. In one of the most serious cases they gave an undertaking that the man should be tried in the County of Down. It is right for me to say that, according to my recollection, justice was done in this case by a County Down Magistrate at the Spring Assizes. [Interruptions.] I always make it a rule, while hon. Gentlemen are speaking, to abstain from interrupting them, knowing that I have the right to reply to their statements afterwards. It is very difficult while interruptions take place for anyone but the speaker himself to hear what he is
  594
  saying, and the effect of the interruptions which have unfortunately been made may be that the reply I have made on the charges of the hon. Gentleman has not been so clear to the minds of some as I desire that it should be. I have now gone through the case of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). Speaking in the hearing of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with whom it will rest, I say that if such a state of things as existed in the past existed in Belfast after the passing of this Act, the Government of the day would have no hesitation in applying the Act in Belfast in the same way as they would in Kerry. During the 18 months that I have been responsible for criminal prosecutions in Ireland, as far as I am aware, I have not shown the slightest difference as between one party and another. With regard to the action of the Bench of Magistrates in Fermanagh, I did in that case all that it was possible for mo to do. In the case of the man whom they would not return for trial, I took steps to have the case investigated a second time, and I regret to say that the result was the same; but my power ended there. The same thing occurred more than once in the South of Ireland, and I took the same course; but again with the same result. If we had had this Bill in force we should have got the persons charged summarily dealt with. But whether it be in Fermanagh or Kerry, I pledge myself that I will not make any difference between one party and another as long as I have this Act to administer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that so far as he is concerned he will make no difference between parties. On Friday last he stated, and even boasted, that this Act would be retrospective. The Government will have the fullest power of investigation under this clause, and they have already stated that they are looking out for evidence with regard to the Belfast riots. I ask whether, with regard to the crimes committed in the district and which are undetected, the Government really intend to break up the Orange Organization and put it down. That is the subject and purport of my inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has confined himself to dealing with general matters, on which, of course, it is difficult to make any reply. But let

  595
  me say that the action of the Tyrone juries as reported in the public Press, and described by Justice Lawson, has been of the most disgraceful character. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well in the case of the Donellys, who acted in defence of their own houses, that Justice Lawson charged for acquittal, that the jury refused to agree and the man was tried again; whereas, if the jury had done their duty, the men would have been acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman said he could have taken no other course than that which he took in Walker's case. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has only to go to the Court of Queen's Bench to get them to do all he wants. Am I to be told that the most servile and corrupt Court in Ireland—[Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that he must not speak in that way of Courts of Justice. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall of course withdraw it in this House. When I leave the House I shall speak in the same way. I say that the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland has never refused any application on the part of the Crown. If the Crown makes a motion it is always granted.
  MR. HOLMES: I think I can say that my recollection is that out of five or six applications on behalf of the Crown the motion was refused in every case but one or two.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when those applications were made?
  MR. HOLMES: Twenty years ago.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I admit that it was so at that time. I am referring to the last seven or eight years, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a single instance where the Court of Queen's Bench has refused the motion of the Crown. The only case that I remember was in the case of the "Crown v. Boyd." That is the only instance which the right hon. Gentleman can give. I assert that there was a distinct connivance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to cause disorder at Belfast, and I will give as an instance the case of the Orangeman tried for the Monaghan murder, who was caught almost red handed in the act; who fired the shot, and who, because his mother got up and swore that he fired the revolver before he left
  596
  the house, was acquitted. In Belfast you have no necessity to resort to the system of change of venue. You have there your juries ready to hand, and, therefore, Orangemen escape and Catholics are always convicted. We know that has always happened. We ask the Government, with the Report in the Blue Book staring them in the face, whether they intend to put down the Orange disorder in the North as they have stated they will do in the case of agrarian disorder in the South. That is the object of this debate, and I take it we are entitled to an answer on that point. The Government have refused pratically to give any information as to the districts to which this clause will be applied. I am, however, willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to postpone to a later day the exertion of pressure on that point.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope we may now consider that this episode, which, however important it may be, is hardly relevant to the question before the Committee—especially as the hon. Member has accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian—has terminated. The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment having accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that the debate should be raised on a later stage of the Bill, I presume that, in doing so, he speaks for those Gentlemen who are sitting near him. I do not intend to reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as I should certainly have done had I followed him in debate, except in a very few words. There is no intention on the part of the Government, and there is no power, to extend the meaning of the Bill beyond the words which are laid down within its four corners. The reason why I used the word "disorder" was because it appeared to me at the time that which would best convey my meaning to the House. There are many Members who talk as if Boycotting and intimidation were not crimes. To say to them that the Bill only dealt with crime would, therefore, have been misleading. No one can maintain that they do not constitute disorder; and this is why I

  597
  added that word to my description of the objects of the measure.
  MR. DILLON: So far as Members on these Benches are concerned the Amendment has been withdrawn. The discussion which has arisen, as far as I can judge, is entirely owing to the action of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Government ask for this power with reference to crime in Ireland because they allege that evidence with regard to the Commission of crime is, for some reason or other, withheld. Now, I am of opinion that before you give power to the Attorney General to institute the inquiry provided for by the section, he should be satisfied, in the words of the Amendment I am about to move, that, "Owing to intimidation, or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence had been withheld." We say that before this power is given, granting the inquiry to be necessary, we should have some guarantee that the machinery placed in the hands of the officials shall not be abused to the harm of individuals. There can be no doubt that an Act of Parliament should be put into words which the Government think clearly embody their meaning, and, therefore, if they have no wish to cause harm to individuals, but only to reach cases where evidence is withheld through intimidation, they can have no objection to the insertion of these words. All we ask is that in the clause it shall be provided that the Attorney General shall not have power to sot the provision in motion unless he has satisfied himself that proof exists which makes it necessary to institute the inquiry. The clause is not limited to any class of crimes, it includes all; but we know that a multitude of the cases of ordinary crimes arise as distinct from agrarian crime. No one contends, in those cases, that there is any indisposition to come forward and give evidence, and no one has implied that it exists; and, on the other hand, it has been admitted that the Attorney General should not be able to order inquiry unless he has proof that it ought to be held for the reason assigned. For these reasons, I hope the
  598
  Government will accept the very reasonable Amendment which I now beg to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after ''district," insert "and that, owing to intimidation, or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence has been withheld."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I can, in a few words, state why it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment. I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman remembers that on Friday night we agreed to insert words providing that a sworn information shall be made before the Attorney General for Ireland takes action under the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman wishes us to say now that the Attorney General shall not act unless he is satisfied that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, information has been withheld. It amounts to this, that however impossible it may be to obtain evidence, the Attorney General would not be able to act unless he had some evidence before him. The provision with regard to the sworn information will operate as a sufficient safeguard against the powers of the clause being applied where intimidation does not exist. We certainly cannot, for these reasons, assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: All my Amendment asks is that the information contain a sworn statement that evidence has been withheld through intimidation or other improper cause. It would not be exceedingly unreasonable that before the Attorney General for Ireland could institute an inquiry under the section he should hold a preliminary inquiry. What my Amendment provides is that the Attorney General shall be satisfied, not merely that the offence has been committed, but that a state of things has arisen such as the Government admit to be an indispensable preliminary to the proper use of the powers contained in this clause—that the information which sets the Attorney General in motion shall not merely contain a verification of the fact that an offence has been committed, but shall also contain an allega-

  599
  tion made on the sworn testimony of some person on whom he can rely as to the state of things in the district—that owing to intimidation evidence cannot be obtained.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after "district," insert "and that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence has been withheld."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment, seeing that it has already been provided that the Attorney General is only to take action under the provisions of the Bill in cases where an. information has been sworn, which will operate as a sufficient safeguard against those provisions being extended to places where intimidation does not exist.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has done full justice to the arguments advanced in favour of this Amendment or to the Amendment itself. The Government do not propose, as I understand, that this is to be a provision which is to be put in operation in every case. They propose it as a provision which they say is necessary on account of several difficulties which are specified. The difficulties are alleged to be in getting evidence on account of people being intimidated, and the Amendment proposes that instead of this being a clause which might, if the Attorney General for Ireland gets a sworn information, apply generally, it shall be restricted to a class of specified cases in regard to which there has been a failure to get evidence. That, I understand, is the argument in support of the Amendment; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General endeavoured to meet that by saying this is not workable at all, and is not necessary, because the clause provides, by the Amendment to which the Government agree, that there shall be sworn information. That is no answer to the objection made, and which this Amendment puts forward—
  600
  namely, that this sworn information should disclose something more than the commission of an offence, and that all the clause provides is that there shall be a sworn information to the effect that an offence has been committed to which this section applies. Now the section applies, not merely to offences punishable under this Act specifically, but it applies also to felonies and misdemeanours, which means all felonies, and all misdemeanours, and all offences under this Act, If the sworn information, according to the provision of the section, disclosed the existence of those special grounds upon which this particular clause is to operate, and which will be put forward as justification, that would be another matter; but it does nothing of the kind. The sworn information, according to the provision as it now stands and specifies, need not contain anything to show that there are any exceptional circumstances whatever within the district proclaimed which prevent evidence being obtained—which shows that intimidation or anything else prevails to prevent evidence being forthcoming. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has not quite met that contention. I quite agree with the criticism he made upon the wording of the Amendment itself; it would be better if the Amendment ran—"Owing to intimidation or other causes evidence in connection with such offences is not forthcoming."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Mr. Courtney, I want to say a few more words upon this Amendment. It is well the Committee should understand exactly the view the Government take. This clause is to apply to proclaimed districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has referred to-night to the fact that we may have to discuss what districts shall be proclaimed. Her Majesty's Government will not proclaim any district without cause; they will not proclaim a district unless there are circumstances which make it right for such an inquiry to be held into the terrorism under which the people are living. Therefore, the fact that the clause is limited to a proclaimed district in itself implies that there is a state of circumstances under which it is desirable an inquiry should be held. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney

  601
  says that, in addition to that, there should be something like a statement, with the sanction of an oath, that there is intimidation or some other improper cause which prevents evidence in connection with particular offences being forthcoming. In our view, it would not be a right precaution or safeguard to throw around this remedial measure which we think most desirable. I do not want to go now into cases in which these inquiries have been held, and held with advantage to the public in the past; but we certainly do think that, once a district is proclaimed, once the responsible Government has said the condition of a district is such that it ought to be proclaimed, and that this section ought to apply, the discretion should be left to the Executive, to the Attorney General for Ireland, subject only to this precaution—that he shall, before putting the section into operation, be satisfied, on sworn information, that an offence has been committed. The Government cannot agree to the Amendment, nor can we agree to the substance of it, because we consider it would unduly limit the power of the Executive which is responsible for proclaiming the district.
  MR. CHANCE: It is needless for me to say that we cannot admit the validity of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster). The case the hon. and learned Gentleman has made against the Amendment is simply this. No district will be proclaimed until the Executive Government has come to the conclusion that a state of general terrorism exists in the district. Then the hon. and learned Attorney General maintained that if terrorism does exist in a district, it is reasonable that the Executive power should abandon the ordinary law and resort to extreme powers such as those contained in this Bill. There is a certain lameness in that argument, because the hon. and learned Attorney General would have us believe that, because there is general intimidation in a district, there is general sympathy with every form of crime in the district. Greatly as Conservative Members of this House have maligned Ireland, I do not think any one of them will say that every description of crime is considered lightly in Ireland. I think that the real reason why the Government should, in the pursuance of their present policy,
  602
  decline to accept this Amendment is a very simple one indeed. They desire to use this weapon, not as a weapon to obtain evidence in cases where it has been withheld, or where it has not been forthcoming, but as a weapon to persecute people in Ireland at the bidding of any Member of the Privy Council, or, what is equivalent, any landlord member of the Constitutional Club. Although they could find plenty of land agents, and others who would be willing to swear anything, they decline to put the tender consciences of these individuals to the test of showing that there is some difficulty in obtaining evidence. The Government desire, on the mere allegation that a crime has been committed in a district, to put this section into force. Under this section as it stands, it will be perfectly competent for the Attorney General for Ireland, on receiving sworn information that an offence has been committed, to order an inquiry, to drag up men even from outside the district, and, if they refuse to answer any question put to them, run them into gaol. I think this Amendment is extremely reasonable. The foundation of this section is that evidence is not forth coming. We have heard a great deal of the good intentions of the Government; but when they are asked to embody their good intentions in the Bill they refuse. I am forced to the opinion that they intend to use this section at the bidding of any landlord in any district to torture, imprison, and ruin the people.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) is a little astray in thinking that this clause is applied to witnesses in proclaimed districts only. That is not so. A witness may be summoned from outside a proclaimed district, if the district in which he resides adjoins any county, part of which is proclaimed. A little area may be proclaimed, and three or four counties may abut upon it. This is a witness's section, putting witnesses to very serious inconvenience, and I think I may fairly say to real torture. It is their case which is to be considered, and not the case of criminals. If the hon. and learned Attorney General really does mean to confine the operation of the section to witnesses in a proclaimed district, it will be absolutely

  603
  necessary that the section should undergo some alteration. Now, if the Government think that they cannot get men to give a formal opinion, that evidence is not forthcoming on account of the intimidation which prevails, they are grievously mistaken as to the quality of the men they have supporting them in Ireland. They will have no such difficulty. But if this Amendment is accepted, there will be a chance of some one amongst the Government's supporters being honest enough not to swear up to the mark. I am well acquainted with what the effect in many cases of similar provisions to this is, and I do say that unless some precaution of this sort is taken, the same thing which occurred to my knowledge tinder the Crimes Act will occur again. If the Government do not accept some Amendment, confining in some way the operation of this section, undoubtedly it will be made the vehicle of very considerable oppression. I did not rise to detain the Committee at any length; but I thought it necessary to point out that this is a witness's clause, that it is the case of witnesses that is to be considered, and that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England is quite mistaken if he thinks witnesses are protected by the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. ANDERSON: I venture to think that, so far, the Government have not appreciated the immense importance of this Amendment. We have already seen, from the discussion, that the clause has been drafted in great haste and with a very great want of care. It is rather curious that, in an important Bill of this kind, such blunders should have been committed in the first few lines, occasioning, as they do, greater discussion in the Committee. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has already admitted the faultiness of the clause by accepting the Amendment as to sworn information. The Amendment now proposed does not carry the safeguard very much further, but its adoption will make people feel safer. The object of having a sworn information was to prevent an abuse of this very extraordinary provision, and I cannot conceive any Criminal Law which ought to be surrounded with greater safeguards than this. This clause simply amounts
  604
  to the introduction into the Irish Criminal Law of the Inquisition. It is the first time that it has been introduced permanently into that law. I should like to hear what the hon. and learned Attorney General would say, if it were to be proposed to introduce permanently such an Inquisition into the Criminal Law of this country. What is it that is demanded? It is proposed, and I think most reasonably proposed, that not only should there be a sworn information, but that there should be some inquiry made beforehand—before the sworn information is laid—that there is difficulty in getting evidence. We have not had any information from the Government as to the cases in which similar power, under the Act of 1882, was put into execution. The great danger of a clause of this kind is that it may be used for purposes other than the detection of crime. I can well imagine some unscrupulous official—however guarded you are, it is impossible not to have such people about you—using this power with the greatest cruelty. Now, what were the cases in which inquiries took place under the Act of 1882? We have been told that inquiries took place in 119 cases. I asked in how many cases the inquiries were held after examination? That is a most pertinent inquiry from the very point of view of this Amendment. We are entirely left in the dark on that subject. I think that if an answer had been given, we should have found that out of these 119 cases, probably half of them never ought to have been investigated. I suppose the discussion of this Amendment will take up some time, and that presently the Government will say we are obstructing the Committee. But I cannot understand any more important Amendment being proposed than this, and I cannot understand any Government who have really at heart the introduction of a measure which shall be an improvement to the Criminal Law not desiring that a provision of this kind shall be as little harsh and as little distasteful as possible. I think it is the duty of the Committee to insist upon this Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I really think that this is one of the points upon which the Government might very well have met the proposals that have been made from this side of the House. I cannot think that the

  605
  hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has fully answered the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). First of all, the hon. and learned Attorney General says that if a district is proclaimed, it follows, as a matter of course, that this power should come into operation. In answer to that, you say that it is not at all a necessary consequence, that there may be reasons quite apart from the difficulty of obtaining evidence which might lead to the proclamation of a district. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has already, this afternoon, told us that with reference to the Kerry Moonlighters he had no difficulty whatever in obtaining evidence and convictions. The men were tried at Cork. Well, but you might have proclaimed both Kerry and Cork, and yet you would have had no difficulty in obtaining the conviction of the men. There is another thing the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has not remarked. He spoke as if this clause only operates in the proclaimed district. That is not so. The moment you have got a district proclaimed, and the offence sworn to upon information, you may force every man in Ireland to attend to give evidence—under this clause upon the mere suggestion that a man belonging to Antrim, Tyrone, Dublin, or elsewhere, knows something about what has happened in Kerry, you may subject him to this exceptional form of examination. The hon. and learned Attorney General has made no observation in answer to that point; therefore, it is quite plain that the operation of this clause is a far wider one than that of the mere proclaimed district. In point of fact, every man in Ireland is subjected to the operation of the clause. It is quite obvious that this is not a small question, but a very large question. What objection can there be to meeting hon. Members in this matter? I am quite certain that if this clause referred to England, we should not feel the difficulty about it we do now. We know very well that in England this clause would not be put into operation unless there were some very strong reasons for it, and that there would be confidence in the administration of the clause. We know that, justly or unjustly, that feel-
  606
  ing, generally speaking, would not exist in the greater part of Ireland; therefore, it is necessary to give satisfaction to all reasonable demands. Let me ask what is demanded? You are asked, first of all, that a sworn information should be made as to the crime. The Government admit that—a very proper admission. Well, what objection can you have, having that sworn information, that it should be sworn that you cannot get evidence? You have plenty of people at your command. Having admitted there should be sworn information as to crime, why should you object to having sworn information that a state of things exists which makes it impossible to got evidence without resorting to this section? You cannot, it seems to me, by the adoption of this Amendment impede seriously the administration of justice; whereas, on the contrary, it will give an appearance, at all events, which will satisfy people that this clause, stringent as it is, will not be applied unless there is particular reason for its application. The present proposal seems to be so reasonable that I cannot understand the objection of the Government to accept it.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Mr. Courtney, it certainly is difficult to speak in moderate language when one has to deal with the class of observations the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) favours the House with when criticizing the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. I have not the slightest objection to meeting fair criticism in the House, and I am perfectly willing, if I am wrong, to admit I am wrong, or if I feel I have put forward something I cannot support, to say so at once. I have been very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has for years been known, not only to this House, but to England and the world, as a great jurist, who has been a Law Officer of the Crown, who for many years practised the science of the law, should put such arguments before us as he has done during the course of these debates. I do not want to refer to matters that have gone before, on the second reading of the Bill, although I may have to do so on some future stage of the debate; but we heard a great many arguments on Friday last from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the distinction be-

  607
  tween the word "offence" and the word "crime," which were answered conclusively by Ms own Bill of 1882 and by the Preamble of the Bill of 1882.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will you read that?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I will with the very greatest pleasure. I will accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us the other night there was a broad distinction between "offence" and "crime"—that "offence" was a mild offence.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion is now travelling very wide of the Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am sorry, Sir, that I somewhat irregularly accepted the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. I must go into the question on another occasion. I will now deal with what he has said to-night on this particular Amendment. He has suggested that, in respect to this clause, there should be some such precaution set round the action of the Attorney General as that there should be a sworn statement that, owing to intimidation, or some other cause, evidence is not forthcoming. I wonder whether he remembers the section of his own Bill? Was there, in the Bill of 1882, any precaution of this kind? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] The right hon. Gentleman says "no." Why did he not say so when he was addressing the Committee? Why did he not tell the Committee what was the distinction between 1882 and the present time?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman. The distinction between 1882 and the present time is the difference between the condition of Ireland at that time and now. [Cheers.]
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Sir, it is most extraordinary the right hon. Gentleman should think that can pass muster in this House. I am not dealing with the applause which comes from below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman's point is that, although in a particular proclaimed district you cannot get evidence, in some other parts of Ireland you can get evidence with perfect ease, and that, therefore, you ought to put some safeguard round the person who has to put the Act in force. Our clause is certainly justified by the 16th section of the Bill of 1882. By that
  608
  section there was exactly similar power given to the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. Although I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman swallowing his own words as often as he likes, I think that when he attacks this Bill and those who have framed this Bill, and when he insists upon precautions being inserted in this clause, he should, at least, tell us why precautions are required now and why they were not required in 1882. That is not all. Has England ever been proclaimed? Has it ever been necessary to bring in a Crimes Bill for England? Yet, what did the right hon. Gentleman do in the Explosives Bill of 1883—a year later? I do not suppose he remembers it—at any rate, it is very convenient to be able to forget all your own legislation, all your own speeches, all your own arguments, when what you wish to do is to make a Party opposition. I have noticed as a most curious thing that the right hon. Gentleman quotes everybody except himself, and yet there is nobody who has made more powerful speeches on these and kindred subjects than the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going to read the section, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman, and I inform the House, that in the Explosives Act of 1883 there was a section of a much more stringent character than that under discussion, for it said that in every part of the United Kingdom, without affidavit, without any person being charged, without a search warrant being obtained, or anything else, an inquiry of this kind may be set on foot. Neither the Bill of 1882 nor the Act of 1883 made provision for sworn information at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Act of 1882 does.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am obliged for the correction. The Act of 1882 does, but the Explosives Act of 1883 does not. Of course I cannot hope to convince right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are of the character of mind possessed and enjoyed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby; but, at any rate, when we are looking at this clause, and to the proviso that it is thought desirable to enact, I think we may fairly appeal to the House not to go back to a second reading discussion of this Bill. It is idle to suggest that the difference between this clause and the Act of 1882 is to be found in the

  609
  condition of Ireland now and the condition of Ireland then. Once given that the Preamble of the Act of 1882 was proved, then Clause 16 of that Act becomes a proper clause—once given that the Preamble of this Bill is proved, then this clause that we are discussing is proved. All I can say is, that willing as I am, and willing as Her Majesty's Government are to consider fairly suggestions for carrying out the Preamble of this Bill, we do object to Amendments being made, supported by right lion. Gentlemen opposite, which are totally at variance with the principles of the Bill, and at variance with the principles which he has accepted in measures of his own. I must say we are driven to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to facilitate the debate when he makes speeches like that which we heard from him just now.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: We are only at the beginning of what will be a long discussion in Committee; and I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) who, as we all know, is a very amiable man, should lose his temper, as it will prevent the Bill being discussed in a fair and judicial spirit. I must say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) spoke in a very calm manner, and without making any attack or any offensive observations upon anyone. He gave his reasons, which appeared to mo to be very solid reasons, in support of this Amendment in a very temperate way, and his reasons wore well worthy of consideration. If they are answered, they should be answered in the spirit in which they were delivered. The hon. and learned Attorney General, in answering the arguments of my right hon. Friend—if answer it can be called, because his style of meeting the case is worn threadbare—has referred to the Act of 1882. Well, as far as I am individually concerned, I disapproved of the Act of 1882, and I voted against it, and spoke against it, just as I am voting and speaking against this Bill; but my right hon. Friend near me was well founded in calling attention to the different state of things that existed in Ireland then, though I do not think his observations justified the measure passed in that year. But to meet this argument my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General
  610
  says, that once it is granted upon the second reading that the principle of a Bill is proved, then the necessity for the provisions of that Bill follows the proof of that Preamble. He says this is the case in regard to the Bill of 1882—so he says that the Preamble of the Bill now under discussion is proved, the proving of the provisions of the Bill also follows. But my hon. and learned Friend fails to see a marked distinction between the two cases. There was a Preamble to the Act of 1882, and it was—
  "That whereas by reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland, the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision, &c."
  Well, I turn to the Bill which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General regards, I presume, with something like parental fondness. What is its Preamble? Where is it to be found? It is not to be found; there is no Preamble at all. This is the title of the Bill—
  "A Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of crime in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto;"
  and straightway it goes on to the enacting part. There is no Preamble whatever. I would call the hon. and learned Attorney General's attention to another distinction between the Act of 1882 and the Bill under discussion. In the first place the Act of 1882 was not proposed to be incorporated in the permanent general Criminal Law of the country. It was avowed as a temporary measure, as legislation to meet a temporary condition of things. That Bill was put forward to meet an exceptional case, but the present Bill of the Government is part of what is to be their permanent policy for the management of the affairs of Ireland. It is not put forward as necessary to meet a sudden emergency, to grapple with some exceptional outbreak of crime. The measure is not resorted to as a "hateful expedient," because it could not be avoided in the nature of things; but it is to be regarded for the future as part of the Tory policy for the government of Ireland. There is another point in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General to which I would like to refer. Clause 16 of the Act of 1882 expressly excluded from its operation a subject which this Bill relates to, and which will

  611
  be found, as we contend, liable to great abuse. Under the 16th section of the Act of 1882, all matters relating to illegal assemblies were excluded.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No, no!
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Section 16 provided that where a sworn information had been made that an offence had been committed, any magistrate could summon a person to appear before him, though no one was charged with the offence. If my hon. and learned Friend will look at the 1st sub-section of that Section 16, in the Act of 1882, he will find that an offence for the purpose of that section means—
  "Any felony or misdemeanour, and also any offence against this Act, with the exception of the offences specified in Sections 10 and 11."
  Now, the offence specified in Section 10 is the ease of illegal meetings; while Section 11 deals with the question of the arrest of persons found out at night under suspicious circumstances.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Section 10 deals with meetings prohibited by the Lord Lieutenant as being dangerous to the public peace and safety. Section 8, Sub-section 1, makes it an offence to take part in any riot or unlawful assembly.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I did not say that riot was not within the provisions of that Act.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: You said unlawful assembly was excluded.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I gave references to Sections 10 and 11; but perhaps I ought to have said illegal meetings. I thought I had said so, and I think I did. So much for the answer, or rather the attempted answer, of my hon. and learned Friend opposite to the speech of my right hon. Friend near me. I do not think the attempt was at all a successful one. My right hon. Friend says that it would be possible under this section, unless some safeguard is introduced such as is contemplated in this Amendment, to summon persons from any part of Ireland for the purpose of giving evidence with reference to a crime committed in any other part of Ireland; and it is not too much to say that this exceptional power, which even the Government themselves have not sought to justify, except by reference to special circumstances which prevent evidence being forthcoming on the ground of intimidation, ought to be safeguarded by
  612
  showing the existence of these causes as justification for the provision. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General complains of the opposition to this Bill, and seems to insinuate, without stating it, that this Amendment is of an obstructive character; I deny that it is obstructive; but I do not hesitate to say that I look upon this Bill as mainly and essentially a bad Bill, and that I think it will work mischief; and, thinking that, I feel I should fail in what I consider to be my duty if I did not, so far as I could, resist it and where unsuccessful in resistance endeavour, to the best of my power, to get safeguards introduced into it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy). I do so because this clause, like the whole of this detestable Bill—which is more detestable to hon. Members for Ireland than it can be to anyone else—provides for what I may call a Star Chamber examination of the people in Ireland. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), I may say that he is setting a very bad example to Irishmen here by falling into a temper without provocation. If there are men in any section or quarter of this House who ought to be excused for getting into a temper on this Bill, or who have reason on their side for getting into a temper over this Bill, it certainly should be, to my mind, the Representatives of the people of Ireland. I would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Gentleman not to give way to that restiveness under criticism of this Bill, and not to copy the style of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when dealing with matters affecting Ireland. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork simply provides that no person shall be arrested and brought before this inquisition unless there is sworn information to the effect that this is the only way of getting evidence to convict. But the Government mean by this secret inquiry—and they cannot get out of the situation in any other way—that there is intimidation abroad in the district that prevents evidence of the offences being given and causes evidence to be withheld. All the Amendment asks is that a clause might be inserted, or a line might be inserted,

  613
  in the Bill providing that before men are brought into this Star Chamber to be examined on whatever matter the magistrate likes—it shall be proved before this action is taken that there is intimidation in the district with regard to the crime upon which the person is called upon to give evidence. I do not think anything more reasonable could be proposed in this House. The refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment, to my mind, will be interpreted by the Irish people into a belief that the Government do not want so much to inquire about crime in these secret courts of inquiry in particular places in Ireland, but that they want to have power to examine in secret men of all kinds and descriptions on whatever subjects they may be interested in, or with regard to any matter which the landlords of the district may be interested in. I can conceive nothing more likely than that, in a district where some sort of offence has occurred, men in that neighbourhood for their own purposes trying to get evidence upon a certain matter, will accuse a number of leading politicians in the place and have them brought before the secret court or inquisition, and have them questioned on matters concerning the relations of landlords and tenants. The Bill may be also used in this way. The local landlords and the local magnates may find political agitation in their district very unpleasant, and they in conjunction with the Castle Authorities may wish to get their opponents out of the way.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is discoursing at large. He must confine himself to the principle of the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. W. REDMOND: What I was endeavouring to do was to show that if the safeguard contained in the Amendment is not accepted it may be possible for the Government Authorities to have men brought before these secret courts of inquiry on the pretence of their having some knowledge of crime in the neighbourhood, but in reality for the purpose of extracting information on subjects of quite a different nature—information on matters concerning the interests of the landlords. We know what has been done in Ireland, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend, as I take it, is framed for the purpose of providing that no person shall be called
  614
  before the secret court of inquiry except persons likely to give evidence in regard to crime, and who would not otherwise give evidence. Now, I do not see why—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have comprehended the Amendment, to which he is not speaking. The Amendment requires that "it shall be stated that owing to intimidation or other improper cause evidence is not forthcoming."
  MR. W. REDMOND: I should wish, Sir, to be in Order, and what I was trying to argue when you interrupted me was that as the Amendment provides that there shall be evidence to prove that evidence cannot be got with regard to an offence in consequence of intimidation. This Amendment is only a safeguard that the court of inquiry will only be called into requisition in cases where it is absolutely clear that the usual mode of getting evidence has failed, or is not available. I do not think that it is at all unreasonable that the Government, before they seek to get evidence in this demoralizing way, in this unconstitutional manner, shall be required to have exhausted all other legitimate methods of getting evidence, and that they shall be in a position to prove before calling this Star Chamber method into play, that it is not possible to obtain evidence in the ordinary course. The refusal of the Government to accept this simple Amendment is nothing more than another proof added to those which they have already given, that they intend not only to give us coercion in Ireland, but to force whatever kind of coercion they like down our throats without any regard to our representations or inclinations in the matter.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) has delivered three speeches in opposition to the Amendment without advancing a single argument against the substance of that Amendment. The first time he addressed us he simply objected to the wording of the Amendment as implying a preliminary inquiry which could not have taken place. That was a mistake which was disposed of by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), who pointed out that the word "forthcoming" should be substituted for "with-

  615
  held." When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General got up a second time the only objection he advanced was that this section would not be put in operation except in a proclaimed district, and that that was safeguard enough. It was then pointed out that that was not a safeguard, inasmuch as the Lord Lieutenant could proclaim a district whenever it appeared to him necessary, and without any crime whatsoever existing. Then the third speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was to the effect that there was a similar section inserted in the Act of 1882. It therefore comes to this, that the hon. and learned Attorney General supposes that there was some reason against such an Amendment discoverable in 1882, which in his opinion is not discoverable now because he has not stated it now. If there is a reason against it now why does not the hon. and learned Gentleman state it? And if there is no objection to it, and we assume so in the absence of argument, why not have the Amendment in the Act? Probably there was some objection to it in 1882 which is not now stated. The only reason why this section should be adopted at all is that there may be some difficulty in obtaining evidence. Will it be for one moment suggested that this section should be put into operation except on this ground? If this section should not be put into operation except on this ground, why not enact that it shall not be put into operation except on this ground? What is the objection to this enactment? The ground upon which the Act of 1882 was enacted was that there was a serious state of crime then existing in Ireland, and therefore the ostensible ground for it was the unusual amount of crime and disturbance; but it has been expressly stated that this measure has not been brought forward or based on statistics of crime. If this is so, then there is all the more apprehension that the Bill may be used for political purposes—much more ground for this apprehension than there was in the case of the Act of 1882. It has been stated—and I think it has been stated by a Cabinet Minister—that the object of this Bill is to put down the National League in Ireland. It is therefore only reasonable that Irish Members should be jealous as to the application of this Act, and should be careful
  616
  to see that safeguards should be inserted so as to prevent its being illegitimately used against political opponents, and not for the purpose of repressing crime. I could mention cases in this country where it would be very convenient for us Liberals to have such a power as that contained in this clause; but it would be a bad thing to give such a power to us. There are cases of Boycotting by the Primrose League, which it would be convenient for us to have the power of inquiry into under cover of investigating matters of crime. It would be very advantageous to us to be able to investigate all the operations and workings of the Primrose League. It would be convenient for us to find out how the practice of Boycotting had been applied to shopkeepers, and how the system had been worked, by the landlords, who are stated to have given their farms entirely to Church people and Conservatives. It is because it would be possible to abuse powers of this kind and to use them for these illegitimate purposes, that we wish to have the security guaranteed by this Amendment put into the Act. We wish to provide that the only ground upon which the power conferred by the clause in question could be put into operation shall be that of the difficulty of obtaining evidence. Another illegitimate reason for putting this power into operation would be the ascertaining the defence of a prisoner while putting him upon his trial, and without eliciting evidence in his favour. I do not say the Act would be used in this way; but it is only reasonable that we should take precautions to prevent such a thing, and that we should see that this section shall not be put into operation for any purpose except that contemplated by the Legislature when the clause was added to the Act.
  MR. P. J. POWER: The clause the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) wishes to press upon the attention of the Committee is for the protection of witnesses from the insults they would be subjected to if the clause passed in its present form without this safeguard. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) rose to answer the arguments in favour of this Amendment and to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), we expected

  617
  that he would demolish those arguments, or, at any rate, that he would endeavour to deal with them. The hon. and learned Gentleman rose in such a heat, however, that he probably lost control of himself. At any rate, I think that everyone will admit that he did not touch the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of this Amendment, and I think we cannot do better in discussing this measure than to avoid as far as possible the heated method in which the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed himself to the matter. He said that the first information, which merely stated on oath that the crime had been committed, was sufficient, and that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) was quite unnecessary. Well, Sir, the information on oath that a crime has taken place does not in the least touch the difficulty which the hon. Member for Cork wishes to guard against. The information on oath, as the Bill at present stands, is to state that a crime has taken place; but this does not meet the difficulty which my hon. Friend wishes to lay before the Committee. I think that in dealing with all the provisions of this Bill and with the Amendment, the Committee ought to devote great and serious attention to this matter, because it is now proposed that the terms of this drastic Coercion Bill are to be perpetual. Hitherto, when it has been the duty of any Government to propose a Coercion Act, the measure has always been limited to a certain period; consequently, when we are asked to pass a drastic Coercion Act, not for a period, but in perpetuity, it behaves hon. Gentlemen to be careful to safeguard the interests of the people whom they ask this House to coerce. We on these Benches would wish very much to have some other statement from the Treasury Bench besides that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in which some reasons might be convoyed to us for rejecting this moderate proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not condescend to give us any reasons for rejecting the Amendment. Now that we see other legal Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, we have a right to appeal to them on this matter, and I think the least one of them could do would be to rise and give us something, at any rate,
  618
  in the nature of a reason against this proposal.
  MR. CLANCY: It seems to me that the arguments in favour of this Bill, and in favour of every clause of it, and the grounds upon which every Amendment proposed from those Benches is rejected are that the clauses of this measure are similar to the clauses in the Act of 1882, as if the Act of 1882 were the perfection of legislation, as if that Act were a just measure required by the necessities of the case. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, of course, do not agree with us; but there is not an Irish Member on these Benches—and I fancy there are now a good number of English Members in agreement with us—who did not regard the Act of 1882 as one of the most infamous measures ever submitted to Parliament. We contended then, and we contend now, that it was not required by the necessities of the day, and that there were provisions in that Act which were simply a disgrace to England, the only thing to be said for it being that it was not so bad as this Bill, and perhaps not quite so bad as some of the great Coercion Bills which preceded it. The answer to the argument that the clause was in the Bill of 1882, is, that two wrongs do not make a right. The argument that the clause was in the Bill of 1882, and that, therefore, without any other suggestion or argument, it is to be taken as a just proposal, is, to my mind, a most preposterous and ridiculous proposition, which would never be listened to for a moment in any Assembly except one prepared to carry this Bill through, whether it be right or wrong. With regard to the taunts which have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), in regard to his having "swallowed his principles," I should like to know who have most "swallowed their principles"—the Liberal Party, or the Party on the other side who declared, in 1885, that coercion was unnecessary—the Party who coquetted with the Nationalists through the Lord Lieutenant, and who said, if they were supported by the Irish vote, they would go in for Home Rule. The idea of the hon. and learned Attorney General taunting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with having forgotten his principles is an evi-

  619
  dence of an audacity that I should not have thought Members of this House capable of, if I had not evidence of it before my own eyes. What is the reason for rejecting an Amendment like this? Do Ministers really want this House to understand that they want this power of secret inquiry even when witnesses are forthcoming? Perhaps they do. But if they do not, why is it that they have not avowed it up to the present time? One of the pretences upon which they justify this Bill is that evidence is not forthcoming to convict criminals; but when they reject an Amendment of this kind, they confess that they want an inquisitorial power—that they want to confer upon the Executive in Dublin Castle power to act—not upon any sworn or trustworthy information which can be submitted to them—but that they want to act upon the information of Irish landlords, who will sneak up the back stairs of the Castle to confer with them in whispers in order to induce them to protect their interests. The Government want to act upon the whispers of ruffians and villians of this description. This Act would not be so bad if it were not for the fact that it will be used to advance the iniquitous cause of these landlords—these sneaking creatures who hate their countrymen, and who want to deprive them of all the liberty that a free people should possess. Again, it would be all right if these people to whom I am referring had not in Dublin Castle a sympathetic Executive. What will render the absence of this Amendment more than ordinarily unjust is that in Dublin Castle the rack-renting landlords will find sympathy from top to bottom. In Dublin Castle what every one of them whispers will be received as Gospel, and the oaths of the people, in contradiction of such whispers, will be treated as nought. This is what will render this provision, and will render every other provision of the Bill, so exceedingly dangerous. I cannot too strongly impress upon the House this feature of the case, and I hope every opportunity will be seized to make it plain to the English people that this Bill is to be worked, not by an impartial Executive, but by one that is thoroughly partizan, and is determined to be partizan, and will continue to be partizan so long as it can find support in this country.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I make no apology for addressing the Committee upon this Amendment at this period, because I think I speak with some authority upon this question—authority derived from my own criminal knowledge and experience, I myself having undergone imprisonment, accompanied with the luxuries of prison clothes and oakum-picking, for six months under a measure of this kind. When complaints and recriminations are bandied from one side of the House to the other, to me they are not very convincing. I was much struck by an observation of an hon. Friend of mine the other night. Speaking of the readiness with which different Governments adopted a coercive policy for Ireland, he said that whether it was the upper or the nether millstone that did the grinding—whether the Coercion Act was a Liberal or a Tory one—still we were ground all the same. With reference to this Amendment, even if we cannot get our views accepted, still we will stand in the position of making a reasonable demand in regard to every line of the Bill, leaving to the Government the onus of refusing those demands. What do we ask now? We ask, in this Amendment, that where a crime is committed that these ridiculous powers of secret inquisitorial investigation shall not be granted unless there is some reason to believe that an offence has been committed, and that, owing to intimidation, the evidence in connection with it is not forthcoming. I think that is a very fair and a very proper proposition. I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster); but it has been reported to me from these Benches, that in that speech he said practically nothing, and that he only indulged in a tu quoque argument with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I think we have a right to claim that some Member of Her Majesty's Government shall stand up and tell us what they want by this Bill. Do they want to put down crime? We give them very large power to do that. Do they want where crime has been committed to bring prisoners to justice? You have power to do that in the existing law, and where you have not we give it to you in this Bill, and we concede

  621
  full power to bring criminals to justice. But you say you want power to examine witnesses—either for or against the accused—secretly. I think this is an unconstitutional demand. It is one that ought to be given only on very solid grounds, and until you have shown that some very great necessity exists for it, you have not a leg to stand on. If intimidation is rife in Ireland, it must be very easy for you to prove it—and that is all we ask for in the Amendment—that you shall prove that crime is rife in a district before you ask for powers of secret inquisition—that you shall show that the people are unwilling to come forward to give evidence against criminals. If you do not do that, it is monstrous to ask for these powers. What will happen at these secret inquiries? Why, the Resident Magistrates—men who have no legal knowledge, except such as will satisfy the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—and I am of opinion that it is a very meagre amount of legal knowledge that will satisfy him—such Resident Magistrates may put to witnesses any questions they like. They may ask a man whether the moon is made of green cheese, and where, for certain philosophical or other reasons, the witness declines to answer the question, they may send him to prison for an indefinite period. Magistrates, it is said, have at the present time power to commit a person for not giving an answer, but that is not so much the question. The question really is the amount of power the magistrate is to have to originate inquiries. His legal knowledge, or the construction of his mind, may not be perfect—and yet, under the Act, you are going to have no check upon him. On that question, if it is to be asked, he himself is the sole judge and the only authority to commit the witness if he refuses to answer. Bearing always in mind the serious fact that in a disturbed district a person who goes before a tribunal and comes out in a mysterious way is set down, more or less, as a marked man, I think you should grant to us that there shall be proof that in those districts there is such intimidation as warrants you in taking the powers under the clause. We only ask that, before you take to yourselves power of bringing every man, woman, and child into the secret chamber of the magis-
  622
  trate—before you take power to examine them on every act of their lives, every act of association and intimacy—you should prove, not merely that there has been crime committed in the district, but that you should also prove that the state of disorganization is such that the people do not sympathize with the law, and that they are willingly shielding the criminal, and that evidence is not forthcoming. I say we have a right to insist, within the prescribed limits of debate here, that there should be an answer to this argument from the Government Bench. Why is it the Government will not answer these words? Let them stand up and tell us why they refuse to insert the provision which my hon. Friend proposes, that this secret inquiry shall only take place when it is proved that there is need for it. We want it proved that there is sympathy with the criminal, not before you punish crime, but before you adopt this secret method of procedure. I think we are entitled to an answer on that point, and that before we get much further we shall obtain it.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present.
  MR. COXsaid: I cannot understand why the Government do not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy). It seems to mo that the Amendment is a very reasonable one—that the Attorney General should be satisfied that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence has been withheld before this mysterious inquiry is instituted. It is very easy for the Government to prove that intimidation exists, if it does exist; and we consider that this clause should be safeguarded by the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which will do something to remove from the minds of Members of this House and the people of Ireland the impression that the Bill is aimed at the political opponents of the Government, and not at crimes?
  MR. MURPHY: I think, in refusing the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Government are themselves responsible for the delay which may take place in discussing this point further this evening. The Government ought, in my opinion, readily to admit an Amendment which, while it

  623
  explains their moaning, is some measure of protection that this clause shall not be put in force improperly. The fact that there has been intimidation can very easily be explained, and I cannot understand why the Government persist in refusing to accept our proposal intended to secure that this provision shall be fairly worked.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: As far as I can judge, the position of the Government on this point is that they have, by refusing to accept this Amendment, smashed their whole argument for the passage of the Bill. It is really on the prevalence of intimidation throughout the whole of Ireland that their argument for the Bill is based. If intimidation and undue influence exist all through Ireland, as has been contended by the Government for the last four or five weeks, the words proposed to be introduced by my hon. Friend would have no practical effect whatever en the working of the Act; because although the words may seem to be a limitation of the powers of the clause, if the contention of the Government is correct, there would be no limitation in practice. The words amount to this, that the Attorney General for Ireland shall satisfy himself that, owing to intimidation or improper influence, evidence has been withheld. I need not point out that if intimidation is so widespread as the Attorney General for Ireland says it is, the introduction of the words would not act as a real limitation of the powers in this Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and everyone connected with the Government knows, that there is no such thing as general intimidation, except that exercised by the landlords. The original contention of the Government is fallacious in every respect, and they are aware that under examination it entirely falls to pieces. We ask that the Government should satisfy themselves that they have proof that there is intention to interfere with the ends of justice before they resort to the measure which is proposed; and I say it would be an abuse of government in this or any other country were that precaution not taken. In Scotland this species of inquiry is only applied to cases of major crime; whereas in Ireland it is proposed to be applied to every crime constituted by this Bill. I do not see why the Govern-
  624
  ment should refuse to accept this Amendment, unless, as I have pointed out, they have utterly given up the whole case on which they found the Bill. Of course, if they have abandoned their position, then I admit that they are consistent in rejecting the Amendment. What has been our experience? We know that a clause similar to this was applied in Ireland to the persecution of many innocunt persons by the permanent Heads of Departments. They are the same to-day as they were then, with the exception of Sir Robert Hamilton, who has been run out simply because he was a moderate man, and his place has been taken by a military person, who will probably be replaced by the Under Secretary for Ireland (Mr. King-Harman), or some notorious and rabid Orangeman. The clause will be in the hands of the permanent officials. It is because of that, and because it will not be applied to the honest detection of serious crime, but to the purpose of continuing excessive rents in Ireland and to purposes even more unjust, that we wish to insert these words; and it is because the Government have no intention whatever of asking for this clause for the purpose of detecting real crime, but for defeating their political opponents by these underhand means, that they refuse to accept it.
  MR. CHANCE: We have been discussing this clause at very considerable length, and although this Amendment has been spoken against by eminent lawyers on the Treasury Bench, I wish to state that no really intelligent reason has been given for declining to accept this Amendment. It was the Attorney General for England who struck the key note, that we should have unlimited confidence in the Lord Lieutenant, and that when he proclaimed a district the mere fact that this was done was conclusive evidence that everyone in the district was a rascal or assassin. I have pointed out, that although a district may be disturbed or proclaimed, it does not follow that the people in that district would have sympathy with all crime. The sworn information might disclose crime or offences which every individual in the district might reprobate, and under the clause the Attorney General would be in a position to drag everybody in the county before a magistrate, if they do not give as much evidence as is wanted.

  625
  That is a very alarming state of things. But they were not satisfied with ending there; they harked back to the old Crimes Act of 1882, and asserted that similar powers were included in that Act. Now there is a very great distinction between the provision of the Act of 1882 and the provision of this Bill as to the procedure for setting on foot this special inquiry. In the Act of 1882 you will find that this inquiry is set on foot by sworn information made and handed to any Resident Magistrate, and then the Act goes on to say that upon the sworn information the Resident Magistrate might summon and examine witnesses whom he believes to be material witnesses concerning the offence. I need not point out to the five eminent legal Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench what the meaning of "may" is here. A Resident Magistrate is a judicial functionary, and you say he may do certain acts, which means that he shall. In 1882, upon the information of any individual the Resident Magistrate really should call before him any material witnesses whom he found within his jurisdiction. The position in this Act is entirely different, because here the information is to be handed to the Attorney General, a gentleman who is not a judicial functionary, but who will have it in his discretion to say whether he shall or shall not direct the Resident Magistrate to hold an inquiry. I also desire to point out the distinction as to the method of proclaiming a district. Now, in the Act of 1882, we find that a Proclamation could only be made upon specific allegations that there had been crime and outrage. But in this case it will be in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim any district upon no allegation whatsoever, but upon his own opinion that it would be wiser and better for the district to be proclaimed. Not having the safeguard as to the power of proclamation we are entitled, I think, to have the safeguard we now suggest. It has been argued ad nauseam that this Bill is necessary owing, first, to the existence of crime; and, secondly, to the existence of widespread demoralization and intimidation. If intimidation does exist, and if this clause is only necessary for intimidation, surely it would be only common sense and reason not to put this clause into force until you
  626
  have got at least one individual to swear there is widespread intimidation. I do not think that it is a real safeguard that some individuals should be called upon to swear. I have no doubt that you will find scores of land-agents, bailiffs, emergency men, and members of the Irish Patriotic Union who will most readily swear there is a widespread intimidation, but at least we should have this safeguard, that if they do swear they can be pilloried in this House and the public Press as liars and scoundrels. The least we are entitled to ask is that when this clause, which gives most drastic powers, is put into force, we should have some individual charged with the responsibility of putting it into force, some individual whose name would be before the public, and who could be dealt with in the public Press and in this House. The Government do not desire that; they desire that some gentleman, slinking about the Constitutional Club, should say to the Attorney General—"There are a number of tenants who are not paying their rents, and an inquiry ought to be held." If these powers of secret inquiry were given to men like Plunkett, there is not the slightest doubt they would be used most drastically. That is what we desire to prevent. We desire that any proceedings putting this section into force must be taken in the light of day. If the Government has any real belief in the existence of intimidation they can have no objection whatever to accept this Amendment. They will not accept it, however, and why? Because they know there is no real intimidation in the country. What did Inspector Davies, of Castleisland, one of the worst districts in Ireland, say before Lord Cowper's Commission? He said—
  "Intimidation is very rife, but there are only two persons who are seriously interfered with owing to it."
  It is quite evident the Government mean to use these powers against their political opponents, and this Amendment, at any rate, has had the good effect of showing the falsity and the hollowness of the arguments put forward on a previous occasion in favour of this Bill. One by one we have seen their arguments torn to shreds; our observations will go to the public, and we have no fear but what the public

  627
  will deal between us fairly and justly. For that reason I hope the debate tonight will be continued until the Government give us some more honest, more straightforward, or, at least, intelligible answer to this Amendment.
  DR. COMMINS: The object of this Bill, or of this clause, is the detection of crime. Let us see what grounds the Government can have for refusing this Amendment. We contend that however good the evidence of the Government may be, however much the framers of this Bill may have directed it against crime, it will be used for other purposes; for the purpose of collecting debts, for the purpose of intimidation, the very thing they say now it is to remedy—for the purpose of intimidating, especially the peasant class, and for the purpose of breaking up combinations, whether economic, social, or political, rather than for the purpose of the detection of crime. We are told we must have unlimited confidence in the honour of the Lord Lieutenant or the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, whore a Constitutional Government exists, not only in form but in reality, there is unlimited confidence in the honour, integrity, and patriotism of the Executive from the highest to the lowest branch of it. But the very fact that there is that confidence in the Executive, and in the honour of the servants of the Executive, does not prevent their power being hedged around by the law in every way, so that if they should go wrong there should be a check preventing them going far wrong. However you may trust the administration of the Executive, you should have checks to prevent them going wrong. I want to know why it is the Government object to have this check upon the improper and unconstitutional use of these very drastic powers which it is proposed to grant to the Attorney General for Ireland and to the Resident Magistrates? Let us see how these powers may be used. The clause may apply to an offence of any kind, the pulling down of a garden wall, or the burning of four or five pennyworth of hay, cattle trespassing on the highway—anything may be considered an offence, and dealt with under this clause. Wherever it is wanted to interfere with the organization of the people, wherever it is wanted to put on the screw so as to enforce the collection of rents, wherever it is wanted
  628
  to get at the secrets of the tenants, an offence will be ready to turn up. There are people in Ireland who will create offences—a person who wants to put this section in motion has nothing to do but to write a threatening letter to himself and nail it up on his own door—as one man was caught in the act of doing—and then go to the Resident Magistrate the next morning and claim that this clause shall b e enforced. Let us take an ordinary case of crime. As the Bill stands at present, unless there is some check against the abuse of this power, it may be used, although the police in the neighbourhood, and the Resident Magistrates in the neighbourhood, may have ample evidence as to who has committed a particular offence. There is nothing to prevent a sworn inquiry being held with the sole object of exercising a terrorism over the whole people of a neighbourhood. I cannot see what loss or damage would be done to the administration of the law by the small delay which the adoption of the precautions recommended would entail. It would be a delay in the interest of justice, fair play, and the good name and the good character of the neighbourhood, and would conduce to no mischief whatever, or in any way prevent the detection and the final punishment of crime. There is another consideration which I wish to advance. the whole history of Irish agrarian crime brings out the fact very prominently that agrarian crimes are not committed by the persons residing in the neighbourhoods where the crime is committed. Every Special Commission reveals that Castleisland is acknowledged to be one of the most disturbed districts of Ireland; but even there, if we may judge from previous agrarian disturbances, it is quite possible that the offences which have been committed have been committed by people from a distance, by people coming, possibly, 50 or 60 miles. In a case of that sort let us see what an advantage it would be to have some breathing time. Let the authorities make inquiries, and see whether or not there is reason to suppose that the real criminals were people belonging to the proclaimed districts. Suppose—and the supposition is not only a feasible one, but a very likely one in a great many instances to be correct—suppose the man who maimed cattle, or fired into a house, came from a

  629
  considerable distance, what would be the result? For an offence of which every person in the district would be innocent, the district would be subjected to this inquisitorial proceeding, which would spread terror among innocent men and do nothing to detect crime.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have failed for some time to see the connection of the hon. Member's remarks with the Amendment before the Committee.
  DR. COMMINS: I did not think my arguments were going too wide, Mr. Courtney; but I will, of course, bow to your decision. I was just about to point out one evil that would follow from the non-adoption of this Amendment. It is this, that it will be in the power of the evil-disposed of any neighbourhood to turn on this inquisition with all its persecutions and invidious accessories upon a perfectly innocent district. Under these circumstances, I submit that this Amendment is a very proper one, and unless it is adopted, or something equivalent to it is adopted, the efficiency of the Act will be greatly curtailed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 206: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I would propose, on page 1, line 8, to leave out "he," and insert "the Attorney General for Ireland." This is a small consequential Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, leave out "he," in order to insert "the Attorney General for Ireland."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is another consequential Amendment. I want to know what is to become of the word "may?" It seems to me that there was some little protection for us in these words as they originally stood; but now, as the clause is altered, it may not be necessary even for the Attorney General to have his inner consciousness satisfied. The moment he gets this power, he may act. I do not
  630
  know where the words would now follow, but it seems to mo that the Attorney General should have satisfied himself that this thing is clearly the case. "May" is always read in these Acts as "shall," and the word "may" will be taken as mandatory. I think I am right in that. That being so, the moment the sworn information is laid, the Attorney General will be bound, as I understand it, to direct this inquiry. I think it would be well to insert, instead of "may," the words "the Attorney General, if he is satisfied or thinks fit, may," leaving it to the personal decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think that is too much to ask. Therefore, I trust the Government, now or on the Report stage, will give us some guarantee that the words I have proposed shall be substituted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We think the word "may" covers the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; but we have no objection to add after the word "may," "if he think fit," if the hon. and learned Member desires it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "may," insert "if he think fit."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the decision the Committee has just come to, rejecting the Amendment which was under discussion for some time, makes this Amendment I now propose still more necessary. We in this part of the House consider, when Parliament confers on an Irish Executive such enormous powers as those contained in this section, that some form of restriction ought to be imposed with the object of giving protection to the general public living in Ireland against an abuse of these powers. Now, the Committee has just decided that it will not require that before the Attorney General puts this machinery into motion some credible person shall have sworn in effect that there is some necessity for the exercise of the powers contained in the clause. The Committee having come to that decision, it appears to me to be more and more necessary that this matter should not be left on the unchecked initiative of the Irish Attorney General, an individual who, necessarily,

  631
  from his origin and Office, is more or less of a partizan, and that before he can move in the matter he should have the authority and sanction of some judicial tribunal in Ireland. I, therefore, propose that, instead of leaving this power to the more initiative of the Irish Attorney General, leaving it to him to institute this inquiry or not, as he thinks fit, that the matter should rest with no official of that bind, but should rest with one of the constituted Courts of Ireland, to whom the Attorney General should apply, in the first instance, with the object of obtaining its sanction before he puts the machinery given by this section into operation. Now, I quite concede that if we on this side of the House were able to look upon the provisions of this Bill from the same point of view as Gentlemen sitting on the Front Treasury Bench, that none of these restrictions and none of these protective provisions, which we are now endeavouring to insert, would be necessary, I quite concede that if we could look upon the Irish Executive, and on their employés in Ireland, with the same confidence and the same opinions generally as Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, the proposals we are now making would be groundless; but, unfortunately, we do not share the confidence in themselves and their officials which the Government seem to entertain. When we get up and move Amendments to this Bill we are told that the powers contained in this clause and in this Bill will not be abused. We are told by the Irish Secretary that this Act will be exercised impartially. We are told that these powers will be used equally towards all sections of the community, and that they will not be used to harass or oppress any individual or any Party in Ireland. We know from experience, unfortunately, however, that whatever may be in the minds of the officials in this House who give us these declarations, that when the Act comes into force and these powers can be put into effect in Ireland, the hands that wield them are not those of the officials who give us these pledges in this House, but are those of the permanent officials in Ireland, who are utterly unamenable to Parliamentary criticism, and over whom we have no sort of check. It is all very fine for the Irish Secretary to tell us that this Act will be administered im-
  632
  partially. I have no doubt in the world that when he says that he means it, and I have no doubt if he personally supervises every little detail of Irish administration, that, perhaps, we would have some hope that the Act would be well administered; but we know perfectly well that the Irish Secretary is, except on matters of policy, the mere mouthpiece of the Irish Administration. We know that, in all matters of detail, and that in regard to all practical working of the Excutive Government in Ireland, the permanent officials in Ireland hold the strings, and it is their hands which run the machine. We know very well that the Irish Secretary has little more to do than to defend their action in this House when it is impeached on the Irish Benches. That being so, we must be excused if we refuse to accept the declarations of the Irish Officials in this House; and if this Act is going to be administered impartially, in the same unhesitating system as, perhaps, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might expect, well, we have our own ideas as to how this Act is going to be wielded. We derive those ideas not from any speculative opinions of our own, but from the experience of several past Coercion Acts which have been enforced in Ireland during the past half-dozen years; and we shall, therefore, have to act on the opinions formed on our past experience rather than on the declarations made from the Front Tory Bench—declarations made in this instance, as they have been made in the past by Gentlemen occupying the same position, only to be disregarded when the check of the Parliamentary Session ceases to operate, and the officials in Ireland get the Act into their hands to work it. That being so, we have to look out for some check on the action of the Irish Attorney General; and I do not think, whatever may be the opinion of the Government on the policy of the Amendment itself, that if we are to seek a check of this kind it is suggested that any more reasonable check can be imposed than that which I have proposed in the Amendment—namely, the sanction of a Superior Court to an inquiry of this kind before it is held. Well, now, we may be told that the Irish Attorney General may be safely entrusted with the powers which will be conferred upon him by this clause, and that he is not likely to abuse

  633
  these powers. We may be told that so important a functionary as the Attorney General for Ireland is not likely to be swayed by passion or influenced by prejudice, and that he may be relied upon fairly and impartially to exercise the powers granted by this section. But, before we can accept that view of the matter, we must examine into some of the past actions of the present Attorney General. Let me take a case. Lot me suppose that a particular offence has been committed in Ulster, and let mo suppose that it seems good to the Irish Nationalists to hold a meeting in that part of Ireland. Supposing that a declaration on the part of the Nationalists to hold that mooting is met by a declaration on the part of the Orangemen that they will also hold a meeting, a counter demonstration likely to lead to disturbance; and suppose they carry out their declaration, and the Orangemen do hold their meeting; and suppose, in consequence of such action, that policemen and other people are shot down, and outrages in various forms are committed by the Orangemen. Let us suppose that some lives are lost in consequence of such action on the part of these people. What comes of this when we look at the action of the Attorney General in a case of this kind, when we remember what has been the action of the present Attorney General in a cognate matter? We know that when a contingency of that kind arose before that the Irish Attorney General, who no doubt did not hold Office at that time, but who had held Office, and who may hold Office again—we know that, so far from condemning, as he should have done, the action of the Ulster Orangemen, he declared when, in consequence of this action one unfortunate man lost his life at the hands of the police, that the blood of this young man lay on the head of Lord Spencer, who was then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. What I say is this, that officials who speak, and think, and act as the present Attorney General acted in cases of that kind should not have confidence reposed in them—we cannot feel confidence that such enormous powers as those contained in this section will be fairly and impartially worked if conferred upon them. Therefore it is more and more necessary, before an official of that kind gets into his hands the tremendous machinery
  634
  that this clause will place at his disposal, he should first obtain the authority and sanction of one of the constituted tribunals of the land on a case made by him for the purpose. It is all very well for the Attorney General to get up and toll us in this House that he is not an Orangeman, and that he has never known an Orangeman. Why, of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not an Orangeman. If he were, he would seriously stand in the way of his promotion. No Government with any decency could appoint an Orangeman as a Judge, and therefore the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not an Orangeman does not tell at all in this matter. The question is—has he or has he not Orange sympathies? And we believe, judging from statements out of his own mouth, that he has such sympathy, and that holding such sympathy he cannot in any sense be regarded by us as anything but a partizan, a party man holding strong views on matters of public policy, and not at all to be regarded in the light of a judicial functionary. Now, can any objection be taken to the change I put in with regard to the judicial authority? I do not propose that the Attorney General shall ask the sanction of any hostile body. I do not propose that he shall have to get the sanction of any body of persons who are likely to look with disfavour upon any proposal he makes. I propose that the veto on his action should be vested in. the Judges of the land—gentlemen whose praises right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are never tired of sounding, and against whom as the persons wielding this authority no objection can be urged with any degree of decency from that quarter of the House. If the Attorney General for Ireland can make out a proper case for the exercise of the powers of this section there can be no possible contention that the Courts of Justice in Ireland, in whom my Amendment would vest a veto on this question, would in any way throw obstacles in the way of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or make the administration of this section difficult. The Judges, as we must assume in a matter of this kind, would be exceedingly likely to view with favour and to assist and facilitate in every way the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this point of setting this

  635
  machinery in motion, and in that aspect of the matter, at any rate, no conceivable objection can be taken to the form of the Amendment. That being so, I would really press on the Government the propriety of considering whether this or some Amendment conceived in a similar spirit should not be accepted. Looking at the matter from every point of view, I, myself, cannot suggest any valid reason or objection which could be urged against my proposal. It cannot be urged that the application to a Court would in any way prejudice the Attorney General, or would in any way tend to militate against the success of the inquiry that was afterwards held. All that the Amendment proposes to do is to require that before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets these enormous powers in motion, he should go to a Court of Justice and make out his case, and that the Judges of the High Court should judge whether the holding of such an inquiry is a necessary or a proper thing to do. Now, it was urged in reply to the case we endeavoured to make out from the last Amendment I proposed to the House that the mere fact that a district had been proclaimed by the Government was of itself a prima facie proof that inquiries, such as this section proposes to hold, were a necessity, and that it might be necessarily inferred from the fact that a district had been in that manner proclaimed, that an offence was committed in that district, that it was unlikely or impossible that evidence would be forthcoming to convict the person charged with the offence and to bring him to justice. Let me point out what I pointed out before, that however just that argument is as to the offences that might be likely as it is alleged to excite sympathy amongst certain classes of the population, that no such case can be made out against offences of a non-agrarian character. It cannot be contended that if somebody's pocket is picked, or somebody's house is broken into by burglars, or some other offence of that kind is committed, that the inference will be that it has been done by a Moonlighter, and that the act is accompanied with agrarian sympathies. It cannot be alleged that in a case of that kind, free from the taint of an agrarian character, there would be the smallest obstacle thrown in the way of getting evidence by the people, and it
  636
  cannot be alleged that a person concerned in a matter of that kind—that is to say, any person made the victim of an offence of that kind, would have the smallest hesitation in coming forward to give evidence. That being so, is it not in the highest degree oppressive to confer on an irresponsible official like the Attorney General power to make an inquiry under this section in a case of this kind? It would not be of the smallest advantage to hold such an inquiry, and no results of a useful character could possibly follow. Hold your inquiry by all means in cases where you have reason to think that from intimidation or other possible cause, that which you fear is likely to happen—namely, that evidence will not be forthcoming; but, unless you can make out a case of that kind, and unless it can be shown that there is some hesitation on the part of persons coming forward to give evidence, or, unless it is shown that there is combination amongst the people against coming forward to bring offenders to justice, I hold that it is inexpedient to hold inquiries of this kind. We have been frequently referred to the Scotch law. We have been referred to it as a justification of the present proposal of the Government, and we are told that when powers of that kind exist in Scotland, in the Scotch law, it is not an unreasonable thing for these powers to exist in respect of Ireland. Well, it has been shown very effectually that that is not a valid argument, and that this power, even if it really exists, is not practically in operation in Scotland. But that consideration is not relevant to the Amendment I am moving. What is relevant is that under the Scotch law, as I understand, and as I have been able to obtain information, the proceeding is strictly analogous to the proceeding I propose in the present Amendment. As I understand it, before this process can be put in force in Scotland, the authority of some judicial officer has to be obtained. No inquiry can be held without such sanction. No official in Scotland has taken on himself the complete and absolute power of holding an inquiry of this kind without regard to the sanction of any judicial Court. As I understand it, in Scotland, before you can use this power of holding a secret inquiry, you have to obtain the sanction of some con-

  637
  stituted Court of Law. You have to obtain that sanction on a case made out for the purpose. When it is said, therefore, that in passing this clause the Government are only extending to Ireland legislation which already exists in Scotland, and that this Amendment of mine is not necessary, we may retort—"If you wish to give us this law, give it to us as it exists in Scotland. Do not give us your version of it. Do not give us the Scotch law diluted through the mind of the Attorney General, altered to suit the wishes of the Government." If the Government wish to obtain the benefit of their argument derived from the Scotch law, let us, at least, in Ireland have the protection which the Scotch law gives to the Scotch people. Let this power be vested in the Executive in Ireland as it is in Scotland; let the law do for us in Ireland what it does for you in Scotland; take this power out of the hands of irresponsible officials and vest it in a Court of Justice. I have very little hope that the Government will accept this Amendment having regard to the manner in which Amendments are uniformly received from this quarter of the House, no matter how they are moved, or by what arguments they are supported—I have no great hope that they will be disposed to view this Amendment with any exceptional favour or with any more favour than they have extended to other Amendments. But I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen who permit themselves to be influenced by the declarations of the Government to the effect that the proposal they are making in this clause is simply to extend to Ireland a law which already exists in Scotland—I do appeal to them to see, when Scotch procedure is transferred to Ireland, that it is carried out as it is in Scotland, and that the same protection shall be given to us in Ireland that the Scotch public have in Scotland under that law as it exists there. It has been pointed out, and has been pointed out very properly, that the persons we are seeking to protect by this Amendment of ours are not the persons who commit the offences, but are witnesses against whom these powers may be used oppressively. We have had, as I have already pointed out, some experience of the way in which Irish officials act in matters of this kind, and when we study the action of the local magistrates in the
  638
  exercise of those powers conferred upon them by the Crimes Act, we cannot come to any other conclusion than that these powers were abused in many instances. They were wantonly set in motion, and, in nine cases out of ten, their being set in motion led to no possible good result. That being so, we do ask that before powers of this kind are again placed in the hands of these gentlemen, that the Legislature shall at any rate impose some small check on the action of those officials, and that this House shall be satisfied before they hand over these powers to the Irish Executive that some protection is provided for the benefit of witnesses against whom the powers may be oppressively used. It has been pointed out that the powers may be used not only against witnesses living in a proclaimed district, but against witnesses living outside that proclaimed district; in fact, against witnesses living anywhere in Ireland; and this being so, I ask is it unreasonable that before the Irish Attorney General shall be allowed to put those powers in force, he shall at any rate go before a competent authority and get the sanction of that authority for what he is going to do. If we could be even satisfied that the Attorney General himself would investigate every case before putting these powers in motion, we might in that case be content with whatever protection his personal supervision could give us; but we know very well that the Attorney General in this matter will simply act on the unchecked suggestion of the local magistrates or other local officials who put him in motion. We know that the duties of the Attorney General are such that it would be out of his power to investigate every case that came before him and to make the proper inquiries before he puts these powers or any other powers into operation. We know very well that the Attorney General has simply to take the word of the permanent officials in Ireland, and that in issuing his fiat for the holding of an inquiry of this kind we shall not have in reality the authority of the Attorney General at all, but the authority of some magistrate in the country who had set him in motion. We ask that that should not be allowed, and that if the Attorney General wants these powers, he should go to a tribunal who can investigate his demand and inquire for themselves whe-

  639
  ther there is any necessity for the exercise of these powers, and whether it is or is not expedient that they should be granted. We say that, in asking for that, we are asking for very little indeed; and I contend that if these powers should be handed over without cheek or control to the permanent officials in Ireland, this House should have some other check to give protection to the persons who may be arrested and harried by the exercise of these powers. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 8, after "may," insert "apply to the High Court for an order directing an inquiry under this section, and thereupon the Court may, if satisfied that an offence has been committed as aforesaid, and that owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence has been withheld, make an order accordingly, and may."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): The hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to make a somewhat long speech in support of his Amendment; but I think I shall be able in a very few words to show the Committee that it is an Amendment that we cannot be reasonably asked to accept. It is proposed in this Amendment that application shall be made to the High Court for an order directing an inquiry under this section, and that if the Court is satisfied that an offence has been committed and that evidence is withheld, they may make an order accordingly. It is on these two conditions—namely, that an offence has been committed, and that owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence is being withheld—being proved to its satisfaction that the Court is to make an order. It will be observed that provision has already been made by an Amendment requiring sworn information to strengthen this case. Sworn information is now required, and that sworn information will be the only information upon which a Court or anybody can be satisfied that an offence has been committed, so that the precaution the hon. Member desires to take is already taken. And then as to the other point—where there is intimidation or other improper cause and evidence in connection with the offence is being withheld, the matter
  640
  has been discussed and decided already this evening. The Committee have refused to require that the Attorney General shall have before him proof that owing to intimidation it is impossible to obtain evidence. It would be most unreasonable now, I say, that a Court should be required to find satisfactory evidence which the Committee decided about an hour ago the Attorney General should not require before taking action. I would like to point out to the Committee as the matter stands now, how generally unreasonable and contrary to the object of this Bill this Amendment would be. In the first place, the Amendment would be no real safeguard to anybody. The application to the Court is an ex parte application. It must be. There is no person to whom any notice can be given. No person can appear before the Court to show cause against the order asked for, and, therefore, it would be an ex parte matter, on affidavits that have been previously before the Attorney General with regard to this point. The only effect would be that there would be delay in consequence of having to make the application to the Court, and there would be of necessity the publication of the information which had. come to the knowledge of the Attorney General—a publication which would have the effect of possibly preventing the detection of the crime which it is the very object of the clause to detect. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in believing that in Scotland any application has to be made to a Court of law. No such application is necessary there. Therefore, the whole of the quarter-of-an-hour which the hon. Member devoted in his speech to that point—namely, the argument that in this matter Ireland should be treated on the lines of the Scotch law—was wasted with an argument which had no foundation in fact. Therefore, on these grounds I trust the House will not assent to the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman, and the substance of which has either been already decided, or if accepted would be hostile to the Bill.
  MR. HALDANE: I venture to dissent wholly from the view of the Solicitor General. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment. And though I support it on grounds somewhat different

  641
  from those of the hon. Gentleman who has moved it, I support it on grounds which appear to me to be quite sufficient. The speech of the Solicitor General only shows how entirely the Lord Advocate has neglected what would seem to have been his duty—namely, the duty of informing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Front Bench what is the nature of the law of Scotland upon this point. It should have been shown to them that the Attorney General in England, and the Attorney General in Ireland, occupy a wholly different position to that of the Lord Advocate in Scotland. If the Lord Advocate in Scotland is not a judicial functionary, at least he is a quasi-judicial functionary. He certainly exercises a control over criminal proceedings which is wholly unknown to the spirit of English and Irish jurisprudence—a control which is of a judicial nature; and what I understand this Amendment to propose is to distribute the power vested in an executive functionary in Scotland, sitting in what is really a distinct judicial capacity—in the capacity of having a control over the criminal proceedings of the country—what I understand this Amendment to propose is to distribute this power between the Attorney General and the High Court in such a way as will really bring the proposition into accord with what is the law in Scotland. What is the function of the Attorney General for Ireland? So far from his being a quasi-judicial official he is a mere litigant, pursuing accused persons in a spirit of hostility. I give every credit to the Attorney General for Ireland for desiring to do his duty. I feel confident he will do that duty in a fair spirit; but in asking that the Committee should give such powers to him as are proposed by the Government, I would point out that the Committee will be sanctioning powers of a character wholly different from those vested in the Lord Advocate for Scotland. There is another consideration which surely should have weight with us. This is a power to be exercised though no person is charged with any offence. Will the Lord Advocate get up and say that he has been accustomed to allow inquiries of this kind to take place without any person being charged? Will he get up and say that there is a single case in the recent
  642
  history of Scotch law in which a roving Commission has been given to search for the purpose of getting up evidence for the trial into the consciences of all kinds of men, to search into the consciences of men who are charged with no crime, and are brought forward for no offence, but are simply told they must attend and give evidence? In Scotland it is a case of merely giving evidence, but here it is proposed that evidence should be given upon oath for purposes wholly different from those known in Scotland. That is the case put forward, and we are asked to give legislative sanction to what is wholly unknown in Scotland. I certainly think that this Amendment should receive the support of Members on this side of the House; first, because it is a proposal simply to vest in a Court and the Attorney General in Ireland powers which will be properly so jointly vested, and which are vested in Scotland in a similar manner in a judicial functionary; secondly, because the power proposed to be given by the Bill is a power far wider than that conferred upon any functionary in Scotland; and, thirdly, because the case we have got here is a case in which it will be possible to take evidence for the purposes of the brief on the trial, and make use of that evidence when it is taken in a way for which there is no precedent either in the law of Scotland, or, so far as I know, any other system of civilized jurisprudence.
  MR. CHANCE: I think the speech of the Solicitor General is a sufficient example of the danger of allowing any Law Officer of the Crown to form an opinion upon a matter without presenting an affidavit before a Superior Court. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) addressed the Committee for 30 minutes, during the greater portion of which time the Solicitor General was either sleeping, pretending to be asleep, or engaged in sneering at the hon. Gentleman; and then he gets up and says he proposes, in a few words, to completely demolish the case of my hon. Friend. He proceeds to do it—to his own satisfaction clearly. He says my hon. Friend's arguments are wholly inadmissible, because the Court must be satisfied that an offence has been committed, and that intimidation is rampant in a district. But the Government, who

  643
  have introduced the Bill, have laid it down that they require this Bill and this power because these offences have been committed, and because intimidation has been rampant; but they decline to submit to any judicial tribunal any evidence to show that the contention on which they are getting rid of the liberties of the country is true in any single case. Why should not the Court be satisfied that an offence has been committed? "Oh," says the Solicitor General, "because we have already provided that the Attorney General for Ireland is not to be set in motion except on a sworn information." But that is a fallacy. What would satisfy the Attorney General for Ireland would not satisfy a division of the High Court. Anyone who has practised in the Court of Chancery knows very well that that Court often refuses to act on affidavits which have been settled by eminent counsel to their satisfaction. The learned Solicitor General's second point is that the Committee have just refused to require that the Attorney General should have proof that intimidation or other improper cause exists whereby evidence is withheld, and that it would be unreasonable that the High Court should require that which the Committee has decided the Attorney General should not require. In this argument he is also guilty of a fallacy. We refuse to make a condition precedent to any motion by the Attorney General that sworn information as to intimidation should be afforded; but it is quite another thing here, for the reason that we are considering what the Court should demand before granting power to hold an inquiry. For these reasons I do not think that the defence made for the clause by the Solicitor General holds good. We are now considering the question of the position of the Law Officers of the Crown. We have given individuals, without a shred of representative authority, power to make and unmake the law in particular localities; and now we are asked to go a step further, and destroy the distinction between the Executive and judicial authority; and we have, for the first time, a partizan Law Officer sitting on that Bench opposite responsible for the policy of the Government, with power to apply a law which never before could be applied to any individual, no matter how humble, except by a competent judicial authority
  644
  standing between the people and the Crown. It may be considered nothing to take this step now, and make the Resident Magistrates the more servants of the Executive, or of a particular Party; but it seems to me to involve a large principle. It seems to me this House would do well to consider whether it is wise to depart from the old principle that the Executive shall depend on the judicial tribunals when it seeks to put the law into force, and whether it is wise to give to a political Party the power of creating a political force to deal with political offenders, and to punish people at its own will.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I am satisfied, from all I have heard, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House have been misinformed on the subject of that part of the Scotch law which bears an analogy to the proposal in this clause. I come from Scotland and am familiar with the working of this law, and seeing that these preliminary inquiries are constantly occurring there, that we hear no complaints with regard to them, and that there is nothing extravagant in the principle, I am surprised that hon. Members should be startled at the proposal of the Government. I see that these inquiries are to be guarded in this clause in the most careful manner, and are only to be allowed when an offence has been committed. An inquiry will not take place whether an offence has been committed or not, but only when the Attorney General believes that such an inquiry should be held. In Scotland such a preliminary inquiry takes place when the Procurator Fiscal, who may be no more than a solicitor in a country town, thinks fit to initiate it. Supposing a haystack has been burnt down. It is not necessary that there should be a suspicion of arson against a particular individual, but this local legal official can institute an inquiry to find out how the thing occurred. If it has been an accident, well and good; but he investigates the matter in order to ascertain whether or not a crime has been committed, and he does that in 99 cases out of 100, off his own bat, so to speak, because he is Procurator Fiscal of the district. He examines witnesses on oath before the Sheriff, where the oaths and depositions are taken, or in his own office. The inquiry is not necessarily

  645
  one to be followed up by a committal and a trial. The Procurator Fiscal goes round and collects evidence behind the back of the accused—if there is an accused. If there is an accused he is arrested, but is not made acquainted with any of the evidence the Procurator is collecting against him. He is put in prison to await his trial, and is not even allowed to have the advice of a solicitor until the depositions collected by the Procurator Fiscal, whether sworn to or not, have gone before a magistrate, who says whether or not a committal shall take place. It is not until the committal has taken place on the evidence so obtained that the accused is allowed to say a word in his defence. This is the everyday system in Scotland. It is difficult to understand how hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can be serious when they come down to the House of Commons and say that something new and startling is being done in this Bill when a system quite as strong was introduced five years ago, and was about to be renewed three years ago by the right hon. Gentleman sitting below me (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). This is a proposal to introduce the usual system of preliminary inquiry, known to all of us in Scotland, into the Criminal Law of Ireland. I know that in most cases in Scotland it is not thought desirable to take evidence on oath, but in some cases it is. But when we come to look at what is being done, the whole question comes to this—whether or not a preliminary inquiry should be introduced, at the instance of an official representative of the Crown. That is the whole gist of the question. Whether in one case out of 100 evidence may or may not be taken on oath is a very minor matter indeed. The question is whether an official, representing the Crown, should be allowed to collect evidence on oath, and afterwards use it against an accused. I think the exaggerated and ficticious view which has been taken on this matter of preliminary inquiry, will astonish the people of Scotland, who are thoroughly accustomed to investigations of this sort.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am quite certain that though my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) undertakes to speak with the greatest confidence for the people of Scotland, the opinions of the hon. and
  646
  learned Member are not in consonance with the feelings of the people of Scotland on any question with regard to the relations of the people of England and the people of Ireland. All I know of the people of Scotland and of their relations with their Representatives in this House gives me the impression that it would be impossible to resort to a worse authority than my hon. and learned Friend to ascertain the opinions of the people of Scotland. Sir, then the hon. and learned Member says that provisions similar to these were passed five years ago, and were about to be renewed three years ago; but he entirely overlooks that which we take to be a fundamental and essential difference in this matter—namely, that whatever provisions were framed five years ago were directed exclusively against crime, whereas our contention, confirmed as we believe by the language of the Government, is that this is not a Bill for dealing with crime. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] I really cannot have my mind influenced by outcries of that kind. I know that the Bill has been otherwise described by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not appreciate the force of their description. I know that reliance is placed upon it much more than upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, from which I gather that, in the view of the Government, this is not a Bill for dealing with crime. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I need correction—but I am afraid correction will not help the matter in the least—when I say that this Bill is not exclusively or mainly a Bill for the purpose of dealing with crime, but for the purpose of dealing with acts that are not crime, but which now, for the first time, are going to be made crime. That is, in our view, the fundamental difference between the proposal made five years ago and the present proposal. I do not mean to say that I should be ready to renew the proposal of five years ago. [Ministerial laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] No; I am not ready to renew it, and for the reason that I am perfectly convinced, as the House is perfectly aware from the declarations of last year, that this method of coercion only aggravates the evils which it seeks to cure, and that there is another method totally distinct that is a wise and prudent one to pursue. But my hon. and learned Friend has given

  647
  us his account, forsooth, of the law of Scotland. He was greatly surprised at the opinions expressed on this side of the House. Well, Sir, surprise is one of those feelings of which everyone has at his command an unbounded quantity. He can produce it according to the occasion. I, like my hon. and learned Friend, have an abundant stock of surprise in me which I expend, from time to time, as occasion offers, and I reciprocate the feeling of my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend's account of the law and practice in Scotland is in diametrical contradiction to that given by the late Solicitor General for Scotland. He says he is familiar in Scotland by daily usage with this practice, whereas the late Solicitor General for Scotland told us that the practice was not in operation. The distinct statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland—a statement which did the greatest credit to his legal acuteness and impartiality—was, that the precognition in Scotland, though purely voluntary, was, as he said, backed by this power which was never exercised. The power of examination on oath, conducted by legal authority on the part of the Government without compulsion, and applicable to a country where the law and the people are in sympathy, is a thing so different from that now proposed that all the ingenuity of my hon. and learned Friend, and all his faculty for speaking on behalf of the people of Scotland, will not induce us to accept the account which he has laid down in flat contradiction to the late Solicitor General for Scotland.
  MR. HUNTER: I have lived many years in Scotland, and I have never heard of any such practice as that mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) of an inquiry on oath being held by a Procurator Fiscal when no person is accused. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that Scotland was happy and free because she possessed this law; but I say that we are happy and free in Scotland because we possess no such law. I admit there are some statements in old books on the law in Scotland which are exceedingly vague; and I think that Members from Scotland have come to be of opinion, having regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the time has come when the law in Scotland should be reduced to a
  648
  more clear form than it is in at present. Suppose the members of the. Farmers' Alliance, which is the nearest approach we have in Scotland to the National League in Ireland, were to be examined by the Procurator Fiscal with reference to the transactions of the society. I will tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that every Scotchman worthy of the name would tear the notice in pieces and throw it into the fire. It is utterly untrue that anything exists in Scotland which can in any way be compared to this system of inquiry which is proposed for Ireland. An inquiry of a preliminary character by the Procurator Fiscal into crimes would in Scotland, as in every other country, receive the support of those who have any evidence to give; but this preceding is entirely of a voluntary character, notwithstanding the assertions in the books on the Scotch law. If the Lord Advocate contradicts me on that point, let him produce any case where, no person being accused, people have been compelled to come forward and give evidence. I say let the Government rest their case on any grounds they please, but do not let them vilify the fair name of Scotland by accusing us of having in operation any such law as this.
  MR. HALDANE: In order to get rid of the difficulty pointed out by the Solicitor General, I propose to move an Amendment to the present Amendment, by adding after "the High Court" the words, "or to a Judge thereof in Chambers."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the words "High Court," to insert the words "or to a Judge thereof in Chambers."—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I intend to put forward an Amendment, that the law under this section in Ireland shall be the same as the law in Scotland, and then to claim the entire vote of the Scotch Party on this side of the House. I have not the smallest doubt that it will be accepted at once by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Solicitor General for England dwelt largely on the fact that publicity in this country was necessary; but what the Solicitor General stood upon most was that this is an ex parte

  649
  application, and that it would be a mere "pro formâ" proceeding—absolutely needless. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the 4th section of this Act which deals with the change of venue, and that in connection with Section 3 the words are—
  "Where an indictment for a crime committed in a proclaimed district has been found against a defendant, or a defendant has been committed for trial for such crime, and a trial is to be at a Court of Assize for any county in a proclaimed district, or at a Court of Quarter Sessions for any county or borough in a proclaimed district, the High Court on application by or on behalf of the Attorney General for Ireland, and upon his certificate that he believes that a more fair and impartial trial can be had at a Court of Assize in some county to be named in the certificate, shall make an order as of course that the trial shall be had at a Court of Assize in the county named in the certificate."
  The words are "of course." I am astonished that the Solicitor General should get up and say that we have not read the Bill. Let him presume on the ignorance of his own Party; but, so far as we are concerned, we have both read and understand the Bill. We ask that he should transfer the words from the 4th section to the 1st, and we ask no more. There is no doubt that the High Court, or a Judge thereof, would make the order when applied to "as of course;'' but the necessity of the Attorney General having to apply for the order would, at any rate, give the protection of publicity. Let us reverse the state of things. Supposing the Home Rule Government in Ireland were endeavouring to smash up the Orange Party and were proceeding to put them down, how would the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh thunder against giving us this power without reference to the High Court? You say that this is the law under the Act of 1882. I say that nothing is more absurd, and that of all the flagitious statements this is the foremost. The Act of 1882 said that the magistrate should not summon anybody who was not believed to be capable of giving material evidence. There is nothing in this Bill of that kind. What is the intention here? Why, anybody knows that it is intended to prevent the tenants entering into combination. We will take Lord Clanricarde, or the estates of the King-Harmans, the Smith-Barrys, or Tottenhams. One of these landlords will go to the Goverament and say—"There is a combination against our estates;
  650
  have up the ringleaders; examine and cross-examime them; put them on the rack, and if they refuse to answer you can give them a week or two of imprisonment;" you will not get the information, but they will be put in prison. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot go with such a story as that to the High Court. We propose to substitute for the action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who will go with the landlords of the country as long as he is a Member for Dublin University, the action of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, as the Court of Queen's Bench will always accede to any proposal made by the Attorney General there ought to be no objection to this Amendment. We are only asking the protection which, under Section 3, you give us yourselves. Why do you compel the Attorney General to go to the High Court if his Motion is to be granted "as of course?" Why do you compel him to waste the taxpayers money? You compel him to go before the High Court, in order that the High Court and the public generally may be satisfied that there is a fair case before this power is granted. The Government have said that the law in Scotland is the same as the provision under this clause. The Lord Advocate, who, I believe, has written a book on the subject, and who is probably the most learned man whom Scotland sends to this House, has, however, never ventured to open his mouth in support of that statement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows too much to do that; he is too learned a man for Her Majesty's Government, when they can get the hon. and learned Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) to defend their position. I ask English Members, if they had the same apprehensions for their country as we have for ours, whether they would not compel the Attorney General to go to the High Court before this power is exercised? I trust the Government will not persist in rejecting every Amendment which comes from these Benches. I believe their intention is to show the country that their Bill is so splendidly drafted that it needs no Amendment; but the Bill is badly drawn; and I say that it is unfair to refuse every Amendment we propose on the pretence that the Bill has been beautifully drafted by the Attorney

  651
  General, and does not require to be amended. I say that we, in Ireland, are entitled to some consideration, even at the hands of the Tory Party, and that if Irish Members are to come into this House at all, you must, at any rate, listen to the voices of those who are really acquainted with the state of facts in Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment further amended, by inserting, in line 2, after the word "Court," the words "or Judge."
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'apply to the High Court, or to a Judge thereof in Chambers, for an order directing an inquiry under this section, and thereupon the Court or Judge may, if satisfied that an offence has been committed as aforesaid, and that, owing to intimidation or other improper cause, evidence in connection with such offence has been withheld, make an order accordingly, and may,' be there inserted."
  MR. DILLON: It has been stated as one reason for not accepting this Amendment that it would interfere with the discovery of crime. How the application to the High Court of Justice could interfere with the discovery of crime is beyond the grasp of my apprehension. The Solicitor General stated that this Amendment was perfectly unnecessary. What difficulty is there in inserting it? If it be unnecessary, and can do no harm to the Bill, while at the same time it satisfies us, why not agree to it and put an end to this discussion? I think the Government ought to have that amount of confidence in the High Court in Ireland, which would be shown by submitting these cases to it. Certainly our experience of that Court is not of such a high character as to make us much value the effect of this Amendment; but we regard it as likely to be some check on the action of the Attorney General for Ireland. When I was held to bail last winter the prosecution was founded upon affidavits, which were sworn by certain sub-inspectors of police; I defended myself on that trial, and I directed the attention of the Judge to those affidavits, and to the fact that Clarke swore to a number of things that he could not have known of his own knowledge. The Judge stated that he considered that two of the affidavits were illegal, and
  652
  that he dismissed them from his mind before giving judgment. This is a case exactly in point. What we contend is this—that the Attorney General shall be compelled to produce affidavits which will show something to justify his demands, and which shall be in legal form; and that these affidavits shall not be drawn up in Dublin Castle in the shape which the Government want, and sworn to without the person making them taking the trouble to read them. In the case I mention it turned out that two of the affidavits referred to were on old forms used against the hon. and learned Member for North Longford two years ago. The form was sent down, and Mr. Flower swore to it without considering whether he was in a position to swear to it or not. We want to prevent that practice which is going on in Ireland continually. The reason why we ask that this Amendment should be accepted is because the Attorney General would be assumed to go before Court with a decently sworn information; and it may be hoped that the Judges would ascertain whether the person swears to facts within his knowledge, or which he reasonably believes were true. I repeat that, if the Government consider this Amendment formally to be unnecessary, there is no use in refusing to accept the Amendment, which pleases us, and does the Bill no harm.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I understand the Solicitor General for England to object, first, that this Amendment might be destructive to the object sought to be attained, and, in the next place, that it would involve delay. Is it possible to imagine that it would cause any delay at all? There would be always some Judge acting at Chambers, which gets over the objection that the Court is not always sitting, and also provides for avoiding publicity if it be necessary to avoid it. I should have thought that the Attorney General would have been glad of the protection which this clause would give him against any chance of being supposed to be acting unjustly. I am sure that if this were a matter relating to England, the English Attorney General, having to take the initiative, would only be too glad to put upon another tribunal the responsibility of deciding what had to be done. I trust the Government will not cause a further occupation of the

  653
  time of the Committee by resisting an Amendment which cannot do harm if they mean to do right, and which cannot be otherwise than acceptable to hon. and learned Members sitting on the Treasury Bench. Of course, if these investigations are not aimed at crime, then I can understand the Attorney General would object to go to the High Court of Justice with a case which that Court would treat as deserving ridicule. If the investigation is aimed at grave cases, there is no reason why the Attorney General should not submit it to that high tribunal—indeed, he should be glad of having an opportunity of doing so. I trust that if it is only to palliate English feeling the Government] will agree to this Amendment.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), in the course of his remarks on this Amendment, complained rather unjustly that this Amendment should be proposed. I think that when it comes to be understood how great is the aversion which this part of the Bill creates in the minds of Irishmen, it will not be very wonderful that a great deal of time is spent in these discussions. There is not a clause in the whole of this Bill, as I have already said, that is more distasteful and detested than this, which provides for secret Courts of Inquiry to be conducted by Resident Magistrates, who are men totally out of sympathy with the great bulk of the people. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) will not accept this Amendment, simply and solely because he wants to have the right upon his own authority of causing the establishment of those Courts of Inquiry, of giving these powers to Resident Magistrates, without having his reasons made public. There can only be one reason possible for refusing to delegate this matter to the judgment of the High Court. That reason is that the Government fear that, in a great many cases, the High Court would refrain from establishing these inquiries, and giving Resident Magistrates these powers where the Attorney General would not hesitate to do so. The conduct and action of the Government in this matter goes to confirm the suspicion which the Representatives of Ireland have had all along with regard
  654
  to this Bill—namely, that it is not a measure to put down crime in the country, but that, on the contrary, it is a measure the powers of which are directed against the organization and the movement of the people for their self-preservation against landlords. If these Courts of Inquiry were only required to put down crime, would it not be to your advantage that the existence of crime and the necessity for these Courts should be made as public as possible, and brought before the High Court of Ireland, so that the people of this country might have your statements in support of this Bill fortified, and that you might be able to show to the people of this country that you really had grounds for proposing this Bill containing, as it does, most extraordinary coercive powers? But right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench do not court inquiry. They do not accept the Amendment to delegate the establishment of these tribunals to the High Court, simply because they are afraid that in a great many cases the High Court, not being so partizan as many members of the Executive in Ireland, would decide that there were no grounds for establishing these Courts of Inquiry, and so that by even the Courts of Ireland the necessity which you say exists for coercion would be disproved, and you would be further discredited in the eyes of the people. I hope sincerely my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Healy) will press this Amendment; I hope that, line by line and word by word, if possible, every portion of this clause will be contested here before it is allowed to become law, because there is no clause in that Bill that is more unconstitutional, more tyrannical, more unjustifiable, and more detestable to the people of Ireland than this 1st clause of your measure, whereby you propose to give to Resident Magistrates, to half-pay officers, retired and shelved police officers, men who are never in sympathy with the people, men who are allies of the landlord class of the country—whereby you propose to give to such men the power of terrifying and bullying in secret unfortunate men on every conceivable subject which may come into their heads, without ever having any report made of the proceedings. I maintain that such a provision is infamous in itself; it has been proved more infamous every minute in this discussion

  655
  by the action of the Government in refusing to allow the slightest ray of public opinion to fall on their proceedings, and in the keeping for the Attorney General, and, I suppose, for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that late Orange functionary, the new Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman)—in keeping for these men the power of life and death almost over the Irish people unimpaired. You are afraid to appeal to the High Court; you are afraid to let any public light fall on these affairs; you want to have it all worked by your chosen instruments, by your Attorney General, by your Parliamentary Under Secretary, men who, Sir George Trevelyan and others have declared, are unfit to have the control of the lives and liberties of the Irish people.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Courtney, I rise to move that the Question be now put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 257; Noes 135: Majority 122.

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Bond, G. H.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Boord, T. W.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Baggallay, E.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

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

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Baring, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Burghley, Lord

  Bass, H.

  Caine, W. S.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Charrington, S.

  Beckett, W.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Bective, Earl of

  Coghill, D. H.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Compton, F

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Corbett, J.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Biddulph, M.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Bigwood, J.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Cross, H. S.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  656

  Curzon, Viscount

  Heath, A. R.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Davenport, H. T.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Dixon, G.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Hill, A. S.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Hoare, S.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Duncombe, A.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Elcho, Lord

  Holloway, G.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Elton, C. I.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Ewart, W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Hulse, E. H.

  Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Hunter, Sir G.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Jardine, Sir R.

  Fielden, T.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Finch, G. H.

  Johnston, W.

  Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Kenrick, W.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

  Kimber, H.

  King, H. S.

  Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

  King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Lafone, A.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Lambert, C.

  Fry, L.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Lea, T.

  Gedge, S.

  Legh, T. W.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Leighton, S.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Giles, A.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Long, W. H.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Low, M.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Gray, C. W.

  Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Hall, A. W.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Hall, C.

  Mallock, R.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Manners, right hon. Lord J. J. R.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Mayne, Adml. R. C.

  Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Morrison, W.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Mount, W. G.

  657

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Smith, A.

  Newark, Viscount

  Spencer, J. E.

  Noble, W.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Stanley, E. J.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Stewart, M.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Swetenham, E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Pearce, W.

  Taylor, F.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Thorburn, W.

  Pitt-Lewis, G.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Townsend, F.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Powell, F. S.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Quilter, W. C.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Webster, R. G.

  Rankin, J.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Reed, H. B.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  White, J. B.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Whitley, E.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Robertson, W. T.

  Winn, hon. R.

  Ross, A. H.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Round, J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Russell, T. W.

  Wood, N.

  Salt, T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Wright, H. S.

  Wroughton, P.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Sclater-Booth, right hon. G.

  TELLERS,

  Sellar, A. C.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Conway, M.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Cossham, H.

  Allison, R. A.

  Cox, J. R.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Cozens-Hardy H. H.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Craig, J.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Craven, J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Crawford, D.

  Blake, J. A.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Blake, T.

  Dillon, J.

  Blane, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Esslemont, P.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Fenwick, C.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Finucane, J.

  Buxton, S. G.

  Flower, C.

  Campbell, H.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Foley, P. J.

  Foster, Sir W. B.

  Carew, J. L.

  Fowler, rt. hn. H. H.

  Chance, P. A.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Gilhooly, J

  Clancy, J. J.

  Gill, H. J.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Gill T. P.

  Cohen, A.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Commins, A.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Connolly, L.

  Haldane, R. B.

  658

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

  O'Connor, T. P.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Harrington, E.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Hayden, L. P.

  O'Hea, P.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  O'Kelly, J.

  Healy, M.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Healy, T. M.

  Pickard, B.

  Holden, I.

  Picton, J. A.

  Hooper, J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Illingworth, A.

  Power, P. J.

  James, C. H.

  Power, R.

  Joicey, J.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Jordan, J.

  Quinn, T.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Robinson, T.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Rowlands, J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Russell, E. R.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Sexton, T.

  Leahy, J.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Sheehy, D.

  Lockwood, F.

  Sheil, E.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Shirley, W. S.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Stack, J.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  M'Donald, P.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Stuart, J.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Sullivan, D.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Marum, E. M.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Mason, S.

  Tuite, J.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Wallace, R.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Wardle, H.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Whitbread, S.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Will, J. S.

  Nolan, J.

  Williams, A.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  O'Brien, P.

  TELLERS.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  O'Connor, A.

  O'Connor, J. (Kerry.)

  Morley, A.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  On the numbers being announced—
  COLONEL NOLAN, rising in his place, said: Mr. Courtney, I rise to a point of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to address the Committee during a Division he must do so in the usual manner.
  COLONEL NOLAN(resuming his seat, and speaking with head covered): I desire to know, Sir, whether it is in Order for a number of hon. Members in the "Aye" Lobby to stand at the glass door and hoot hon. Members going to divide in the other Lobby?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, such conduct was disorderly.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 261: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I now move to insert in this clause, after the word "may," in line 8, the following words:—"By warrant in writing under his hand."
  MR. HOLMES: I would suggest that the expression "by warrant" is a purely technical expression, and that the words "by writing under his hand" would be better.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think the form suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be so good as that which I have proposed; but if he is of opinion that it would be better, I will not press my Amendment as against his.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. HOLMES, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 8, after "may," insert "by order in writing under his hand."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I have now to move another Amendment which stands in my name, and which I desire to see inserted, because, otherwise, I think there is reason for suspecting that the clause may be used for improper purposes. I propose, therefore, to move that in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after the word "may," there should be inserted these words—"Provided that no person has been made amenable for such offence." If this safeguard be not granted, the Crown may, when a person is in custody charged with an offence, make use of this section to bring his witnesses into a police station and subject them to a course of secret cross-examination, merely with the object of getting at the prisoner's defence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is aware that in civil matters, where a person is entitled to interrogatories, he is not permitted by the rules which have to be observed to ask questions relating solely to the defence that is to be set up; and all I ask is—whether by means of this Amendment in its present form, or by some other Amendment which may better meet the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that something analogous to the practice followed in civil cases may be also established in criminal cases coming under the operation of this Bill. I should state, in order that the Committee may not think the evil which I wish to guard against is a purely imaginary one, that I have known cases, even under the existing
  660
  law, in which the Crown Prosecutor has improperly endeavoured to extract from the witnesses for the prisoner what the prisoner's defence was to be. Of course, there is no such machinery under the existing law as is set up by this clause; but the power that is resorted to is that which is given by the Winter Assizes Act, whereby the Crown is compelled to pay the expenses of the witnesses, this provision, innocuous and beneficial as it would otherwise be, having been frequently used for the purpose of making a contract with the witnesses for the defence, and then with the object of improperly seeking to extract from the witnesses what is the defence set up on behalf of the prisoner. It may be contended that where a prisoner is innocent this can do him no harm; but we say that what is good law and good sense in civil cases ought to be so in criminal cases. We all know that in civil cases no such proceeding as I desire to prevent in criminal cases is allowed, notwithstanding that there is the fullest power to administer interrogatories, the object being to prevent the interrogatories being addressed to the ascertainment of the defence. I may add that I have no particular attachment to the wording of the Amendment as it stands in my name; but I regard the point to which it relates as an essential one, and, therefore, I ask the Committee to adopt this proposal.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "may," insert "provided that no person has been made amenable for such offence."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOLMES: As I understand what the hon. Member for Cork means by the insertion of the words of his Amendment, it is that, where a man has been arrested for any offence, the investigation intended by the clause shall not take place. This is not an Amendment which the Government can possibly accept. The hon. Gentleman hardly seems to understand what is meant by the word "amenable."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The meaning I put on the word "amenable" is being arrested, or charged with an offence by being summoned upon a specific charge.
  MR. HOLMES: If that is the hon. Member's view, I repeat that it is quite impossible for the Government to accept

  661
  his Amendment. It frequently happens that a great number have been engaged in the commission of a particular offence; and if in such a case any one of those persons were arrested, the investigation would, according to the Amendment, be checked altogether. If the hon. Gentleman means that if a man is summoned the magistrate is not to hold an inquiry unless that particular person is present, and unless the evidence is directed against that particular person, the Government cannot possibly accept such. a proposal. Why, a bogus summons might be issued against a certain person, and then no one could be required to give evidence. The Government desire to afford all proper protection to individuals; but the hon. Gentleman must see that it is impossible for them to go to the extent he proposes.
  MR. CHANCE: The Committee has already had evidence of the claim put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to shut up the proceedings of this House, and it may be that in this claim a large number of hon. Members seated on the opposite Benches fully concur, and are of opinion that this discussion has already gone to too great a length for them. Those hon. Gentlemen may, however, be told—and if they do not know it already they ought to be told, if they have any glimmering of intelligence at all—that the debates which are being conducted on this side of the House are not being carried on with any hope of moving either their minds or their hearts. They are being conducted with another object entirely. They are being conducted with the object of explaining the provisions of this infamous measure to the public, in order that the public may sooner or later send hon. Gentlemen opposite who are promoting the measure to the political perdition they merit. Of course, the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), who is at the present moment hovering between the Treasury and the Judicial Bench, meets us with the regular non possumus to which he is accustomed, and the reason why he does this is sufficiently plain. He has stated that if any person is charged with the commission of a criminal offence, the effect of the adoption of this Amendment would be to prevent the extraordinary power of investigation conferred
  662
  by this clause from being exercised. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to disregard the fact that when a person is arrested the ordinary power of examining witnesses cornea into force, and persons may be sent for from any part of the Kingdom and put upon their oath, and if they decline to answer any reasonable question put to them they may be sent to gaol. But we have now got to a further stage. We understand that the extraordinary powers of this Bill are to be so employed that they are not to be relied upon for the mere purpose of supplementing the ordinary provisions of the law, but that when even the ordinary magistrates are not staunch enough to carry out the behests of the Government, then, whether a person accused of an offence has been arrested or not, a tribunal may be sent down armed with these extraordinary powers. As the section stands without this Amendment, although a person may have been arrested and made amenable, the Crown officers would be enabled to ransack the whole country for witnesses, and send them to gaol if they failed to give such answers to the questions put to them as might be deemed desirable. We know very well who and what the Resident Magistrates are, and that it will be a very simple matter to send one down with a roving commission to catch witnesses for the defence in any particular case, and send them to gaol for four, five, or six months for having given unsatisfactory answers when interrogated, so that, when a prisoner has been got hold of, his witnesses may be safely kept on one side. We are told that we do not understand the meaning of the word "amenable." Let me call to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen opposite that when statistics were being used to defame the juries of Ireland, it was their Chancellor of the Exchequer who showed that prisoners had been made "amenable" in a large number of cases, and that in a very small number of instances were they convicted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the Committee need debate this question at any serious length, as it is almost hopeless to point out and demonstrate the objectionable nature of the course being taken by the Government. I would simply put this one question to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland—would the right hon.

  663
  and learned Gentleman consider it fair, supposing, for instance, I were being put upon my trial for murder, and I bad, say, 10 witnesses for my defence, that all those 10 witnesses should be examined by a process of private inquiry, and everything relating to my defence gone into, so that he might be furnished with full particulars on the subject in his brief? But I will take another case. Let us apply this argument to the Maamtrasna case, or the Huddy case, in both of which everybody who was called on to give evidence spoke the Irish language. All of them were Irish-speaking witnesses, and they wore all extremely poor. Not one of these could be brought up to Dublin to give evidence at the cost of the prisoners, and their names had to be furnished to the Crown Solicitor in order that they might be brought to Dublin at the expense of the Government; and of all the mean things I ever heard of the meanest would probably be this—that when these wretched peasants were brought to Dublin from the West of Ireland, and the Crown Solicitor had got their names, they should be taken into a room at the Castle and there pumped under this section of the Crimes Bill, and their statements taken down and furnished to the Attorney General in his brief. Such a thing would be odious and hateful, and could not have been done in Franco during the worst days of Napoleon. And yet this is what is proposed to be done in the Jubilee year of Her Most Gracious Majesty. There is not a pickpocket in England whose witnesses would be subjected to such treatment as this. Well may we ask, is this the way Her Majesty's Government are going to treat us? A prisoner may be guilty, but the law assumes him to be innocent. The duty of proving his guilt lies with the prosecution. Everything connected with the defence will, under this clause, be in the hands of the Government, who will very carefully conceal the depositions made against a prisoner by their own witnesses. I say, if you are going to fight us in Ireland like this, you had better proclaim martial law at once. We hear that the Government have been very much troubled in these matters. Why should they not insert a simple little clause that would enable them to do as they please? This would simplify matters everywhere, and would
  664
  very much simplify them to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). Here we put before the Committee an Amendment on which the Committee might do one of two things. They might say either let the Government inquiry be suspended until the accused person has been arrested, or they might provide some safeguard when he has been arrested against the witnesses being subjected to secret examination, so that they might not be thumb-screwed by George Bolton and Company. The Government may object to our Amendment, but they know very well what is at the bottom of it. Do not let them take these verbal objections about being made amenable. Is that can dour? Is that the way in which they ought to treat fair-minded opponents? Yes; we, at all events, give fair battle and use plain language, if necessary, such as can be understood even by the Tory Party below the Gangway; and we say it is unreasonable to ask us to submit to a system which throws the entire defence of the prisoner, because of his poverty, into the hands of the Crown, and which asserts that by whatever steps the Government plan must be followed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I rise, Sir, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) the desirability of reporting Progress. It is most unusual to go on after half-past 12 with any important Bill, and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that by applying the closure to-night he has got through more Business than he might have expected to get through. The Committee has had the advantage of hearing the opinions of hon. Members on both sides upon the Scotch law, and on many other important points. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own Rules, we are to adjourn every night at half-past 12 o'clock, and it is now a quarter to 1. There is a long Bill on the Paper which will take at least a quarter of an hour, even if there is no other Business to be disposed of. I, therefore, beg to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not, Sir, in my power to assent to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we have made great progress this evening. I am unable to agree with him, and I am sure that very few hon. Members in the House will agree with him. The progress made this evening is, in my opinion, progress which will not reflect credit on this House. We have disposed of nine Amendments out of 140 of which Notice has been given on the 1st section of the Bill. Under these circumstances, I must ask the Committee to sit for some time longer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will be unwise to press a proposal of this kind, and I hope he will withdraw it. But I think we are entitled to some answer from the Government as to the Amendment. The fact that we got no answer naturally drove my hon. and gallant Friend to make the Motion for reporting Progress, I am quite prepared to go on with this discussion, provided that we are treated with even Tory courtesy. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, on receiving some reply, will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not care much whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraws his Motion or not; but I am of opinion, whatever the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite may be, that we have sat here quite long enough discussing this Bill. [Laughter.] If we are not allowed to express our opinions, at any rate we can register them; and I shall venture to express my opinions until the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) brings down his extinguisher again. My reason for supporting the Motion placed before the Committee is that there are several important Bills coming on. At any rate, there is one measure—the Truck Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh)—which we have been promised should come on this evening. We cannot give due attention to the various provisions connected with that Bill if we prolong the discussion upon this measure through the early hours of the morning. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury gets up whenever anything is said
  666
  from this side of the House with the remark that in his opinion this, that, and the other is not right, and that to his intense regret he finds it his painful duty to oppose us. In this he reminds me more than anything else of a celebrated character of Charles Dickens, whose name, I think, was Pecksniff. All I can say is that if the right hon. Gentleman will be so perverse—[Cries of "Order!"] Well, when hon. Gentlemen opposite sit in the Chair they will be able to rule me out of Order—not before. As the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury never will listen to a single word we say, I, for my part, shall have the greatest pleasure in making him walk through the Division Lobbies.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am quite willing to withdraw my Motion; but I trust that when the Amendment is disposed of, the Government will consent to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment again proposed.
  MR. HOLMES: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that it was not from any discourtesy to him, or any desire not to answer his observations, that I did not rise again to reply. But I had already stated that this Amendment could not possibly be accepted. As far as I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman, he did not contest that. He wont upon another point, and asked me whether I considered it fair that the Government should adopt the machinery provided by this clause in the case he mentioned. I think it would be unfair, but I do not see how any Amendment introduced here could provide against such a case. Nobody can say who a prisoner's witness will be. I have heard Judges say over and over again that nobody ought to describe a witness as a witness for the Crown or a witness for the prisoner, because a witness ought to be absolutely impartial and to give his evidence truly. If an investigation takes place under this section the persons who will be brought before the magistrates are persons who are supposed to know something of the matter. No one can toll up to the time when the trial takes place who will call the witnesses. But the Crown will not willingly adopt this provision for the purpose of extracting a prisoner's

  667
  case from those who may be his witnesses. I most willingly give that assurance.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) is not correct in saying that the case respecting a misuse of the clause for the purpose of extracting a prisoner's case from his witnesses has not been made out. That was the ground on which I submitted the Amendment to the Committee. The arguments I ventured to address to the Committee have not, I think, been answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is very easy for him now to get up and tell us that this clause, if passed, will not be used in the manner we suggest; but will he be willing—I do not care whether he takes my words or uses words of his own—to introduce a declaration into the Bill, whether in the form of a Proviso or otherwise, that the clause shall not be misused in the manner which I have described? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is impossible to distinguish between those who may be witnesses for the prisoner and those who may be witnesses for the Crown. I venture to tell him that there is no such impossibility. I will put a very common case to him. Let us take it that the prisoner's defence is an alibi. The prisoner's witnesses in such a case could not be persons who could possibly prove the Crown case. The witnesses who would prove the Crown case would be parties who witnessed the commission of the offence or knew something about it. Those who would be called to prove the alibi could not possibly be witnesses for the Crown. I quite grant that in certain cases it is quite conceivable that it would be difficult to draw a distinction between witnesses for the Crown and witnesses for the defence; but that difficulty arises in every civil case. If the right hon. Gentleman's observations are true of criminal cases they are equally true of civil cases; but, notwithstanding this, the Courts of Law have no difficulty in administering the law so as to prevent the misuse of that process of the judicial system which might otherwise enable one party to improperly get hold of the case of the other party. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether he will be willing to give effect to the promise he has given here, and to make
  668
  it binding on his successor when he himself is sitting on the Judicial Bench? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduce words into the Bill to carry out the pledge he has given that the powers granted by this section shall not be improperly used for the purpose of getting at witnesses for the defence?
  MR. PICTON: The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has plainly admitted that under the clause, as it is proposed to pass it, cases of gross unfairness may possibly arise, and all the guarantee he offers against the occurrence of such cases of unfairness is that the Government do not intend that such things should happen.
  MR. HOLMES: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not for a moment admit that, under the clause as it stands, it would be possible at all for unfairness to arise; but what I said was, that it would be grossly unfair to use the power for the purpose of extracting the prisoner's case. I did not say this would be possible.
  MR. PICTON: Well, we understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it will be possible, in certain eases, that a witness who would testify for the prisoner may be examined in secret on oath, and have the whole of his testimony extracted from him. Well, Sir, I think that a very grave scandal would arise under such circumstances. What should we think in this country if a man who was lying in gaol accused of a certain offence had his witnesses examined on oath by the prosecution without his knowledge, and without anyone who represented him being present? I think we should consider that the days of Stuart tyranny had come back, and that we should be ready to rise in rebellion. I thought that the power conferred by this clause was to be used, in cases where no one was accused, in order to ascertain the origin of particular crimes, and that when an accused person was forthcoming it would sink into abeyance, and the ordinary procedure would be adopted. Under the circumstances, unless we have some fair answer to the appeals which have been made from this quarter of the House, I feel that we shall be responsible for a grave infraction of all the principles of justice if we do not contest this clause.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: When the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) said that he had made no admission that this clause might be used for the purpose of getting hold of the case of a prisoner, he was technically right; but when he said that it would be grossly unfair so to use it, he practically admitted that it could so be used. We cannot, Sir, accept any promise such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, at the present time, is, as it were, suspended between the House of Commons and a seat on the Judicial Bench; and when he has gone from here, which I believe will be in a very short time, we shall have a new set of officials, who will not be in any way bound by what he promises, and who will, in the most ready manner, repudiate any responsibility for the statements made by their Predecessors. The fact is, that the Government seem to be determined to play against every prisoner with loaded dice. They will only have their own case, and the means of securing the fullest evidence against every prisoner; but they are providing moans for securing, in advance, the evidence of witnesses for the defence. They are also providing themselves with machinery to tyrannize over, persecute, and intimidate the witnesses for the defence. These things have been done before by a set of men who will be at the game again in a few months—that game in which they are such practised adepts. They know how to go into prisoners' cells and to tell them that there are in the next cells persons who will come forward as witnesses against them. They understand the process of manufacturing cases for the purpose of getting men out of the way. There are men whom they want to get out of the way now, and they will do it in the same way as they have done it before. We want something more than a mere assurance from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that the powers conferred by this clause will not be used for preventing fair trials taking place in Ireland. If this clause passes into law in its present shape, the Government will have an absolute power to conduct any criminal proceedings they like. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton)
  670
  spoke of the Stuart days. It will be worse than that. The Government will be able to carry on their trials in a more abominable way than in the worst days of Irish misgovernment. It would be infinitely more honest and honourable for them to say at once that this is what they intend. Even if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) be accepted, I doubt whether it will afford sufficient protection. It would, however, do something towards affording prisoners the chance of a fair trial in Ireland; and therefore it ought to be accepted in a reasonable spirit. If the pledges which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland is so profuse in giving to the Committee are anything more than mere empty words, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government why they have not introduced a clause which would embody the real opinions and give us effective safeguards against the taking away of the lives and liberties of men in Ireland, whose lives and liberties ought to be secured? The Government have given us no effective assurance of their sincerity. I want to know from the English Law Officers why they have not shaped the clause in such a way that, whilst giving the Government the liberty they claim to secure evidence against prisoners, it would afford prisoners an assurance that their witnesses would not be seized upon, persecuted, tortured, and thrown into gaol, so that they may be forced to give such evidence as the Government desire, or to withhold such evidence as the Government do not wish them to give?
  DR. COMMINS: The longer the discussion of this Bill proceeds the more we become aware of the depths of what I might almost call the chicanery to which its framers have descended. Practically, it is not denied that, after a prisoner is committed—I will not use the expression "made amenable," as right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench seem to have forgotten its meaning—it will be open to the Attorney General for Ireland, unless some such Amendment as this is carried, to bring before two magistrates appointed by him every witness whom he may imagine to know something in favour of the prisoner. He may get their evidence, hand it over to the prosecution, and

  671
  exercise such pressure upon them as may prevent them coming forward at the trial, or may look them up in gaol until the trial is over. It is not denied that such things are possible. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has given an instance of such a. course being pursued. We need not, however, have any instance, because it is clear that it can be followed; and, unless the Government intend to use this power for some such purpose, I do not see why they seek to obtain it. When they are driven into a corner they say—"Oh, you must trust to us. We do not intend to do anything of the kind." Well, that has been the plea of despotism and injustice all the world over. We cannot trust to their good intentions. We know where good intentions lead to. A large number of good intentions have gone to that place from the Treasury Bench, and a large portion of its foundation has a Treasury odour about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has given instances, such as the case of an alibi, in which the witnesses for the defence may not know anything at all about the charge against the prisoner. There are other cases in which it would be still more dangerous to tamper with witnesses for the defence. A good many crimes of violence will be dealt with under this measure, and a good many cases of assault upon the police and upon bailiffs. We know that in all these cases the guilty party is, as as a rule, the person who begins, so that you have only to keep out of the road the person who knows who began the quarrel, in order to put it in the power of an Emergency man, or a policeman, to attack anybody he thinks fit. If the offending party can keep out of the way any looker-on who can say who commenced the dispute, he can have it all his own way, and will be able to half-kill a man first and send him to gaol afterwards. This is the power given by this Bill; this is the power we are asked to entrust to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on his promising that it will not be abused. We cannot trust anybody with such powers, and if they are forced from us we must expose them thoroughly, and let the English people see what the provisions of this Bill really amount to.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I regret, Sir, that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) has not seen his way to give a more specific and definite pledge to meet the very reasonable objections urged by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think there is no doubt—and I do not understand the Attorney General for Ireland to deny it—that under the clause as drawn very great and serious abuses may arise. I have some recollection of what took place under the late Act, and I think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are not wrong in saying that some abuses occurred two or three years ago. I, for one, shall certainly vote for the Amendment. As, however, the arguments have now been stated, and the Government remain obdurate, a Division might as well be taken without delay.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Mr. Courtney—[Cries of "Divide!"] I may remind hon. Members opposite that I have not yet spoken on a single Amendment. I was going to urge, on behalf of the Amendment before the Committee, that the very argument which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has advanced against the proposal proves our contention, which is that the Government under this clause will be able to get at, and to tamper with the witnesses of an unfortunate prisoner. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is wholly unfair to got hold of witnesses and to deal with them in the manner which, as has been stated on this side of the House, has been adopted. That very intimation, as was pointed out, appears to me to convey the necessary inference that there is a possibility of these things occurring under this clause. But I go further, and say that, according to the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland himself, those deplorable consequences must ensue, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, that when the preliminary inquiry was taking place it would not be known who the witnesses would be. Now, that being so, I submit that the first effect of these persons being summoned and interrogated and subjected to the rack and the thumb-screw will be to pollute

  673
  the source of justice from the outset. People who may, or may not, be witnesses for the prisoner will be got hold of, and, before you can tell whether they will or will not be witnesses for the defence, will be subjected to all the interrogations and racking inquiries which will be permissible under this Act. I said you would be submitting them to the rack and the thumb-screw. It is quite true. I do not mean that even this Government will introduce physical torture again. But I would point out that there are other means of torture. [Ministerial ironical cheers.] Well, in the case of persons who have more sensitive nerves than hon. Gentlemen opposite, there are other means of torture far worse than the thumb-screw, or the boot, or the rack. I maintain—and I shall endeavour to make right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench appreciative of my contention through the method of the Division Lobbies, if that course should be necessary—that under this clause, as it at present stands, the Government will do all they can to get hold of witnesses and compel them to answer under the threat of longer or shorter periods of imprisonment. This, in fact, is an abominable effort on the part of the Government to endeavour to manufacture evidence for the purpose of bolstering up cases which would be scouted out of Court if left to stand or fall on their merits. It is most monstrous that witnesses should be capriciously subjected to this inquisition and mental rack and torture, which is only worthy of the most iniquitous tyranny of the Middle Ages. I confess that I wonder that even a Tory Government can be so far degenerate as to assent to a clause which unrestrictedly permits the tampering with witnesses and with their evidence to the prejudice of the unfortunate prisoners. To me it is perfectly evident, and even on the very argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) himself, it is completely fair and just that the disgraceful evil which this Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. M. Healy) aims at counteracting—and which will necessarily ensue should the clause become law—should be cut out from this Bill which the Government has brought in with the object of suppressing the Constitutional liberties of the Irish people.
  MR. CHANCE: We have been often told, Sir—and told with an assurance which is a scandal in the face of the little basis of fact which is behind the statement—during the course of this debate that the procedure proposed in this Bill of the Government is in many points similar, if not identical, to the procedure which is the admitted practice under the law of Scotland. Now, Sir, I have taken the trouble to consult authorities in this matter, and I find that in this volume—Hume on Crime—the procedure in the Scotch Courts is laid down in this manner—that after the libel is raised all intercourse between the Crown and the witnesses for the prisoners is forbidden and prohibited expressly. This prohibition is what we desire to create by the Amendment which is under the consideration of this Committee. In these circumstances I find it—I must necessarily find it—very difficult to understand what is the exact position in argument, and in common sense, of those Gentlemen who tell us, over and over again, that the clause against which the Amendment is directed is the same as a provision contained in the Scotch law, and make a strong effort to justify themselves on this false ground, in their desire to retain to the Government the right to torture and interfere with the witnesses for the defence—the witnesses for prisoners against whom the prosecutors are already prejudiced. Surely, Sir, we do not ask too much when we look for some explanation of unreasoning belief and conduct of this sort.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I think, Sir, considering the many alterations which it will be now necessary to make in this measure, that it should be presented to the Members of the Committee in a clearer form. I would like to learn from the Government whether, in consequence of these numerous alterations which have taken place, it is their intention to have the Bill reprinted for Members' convenience?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that surely the hon. Member (Sir John Swinburne) will remember that up to this moment the Committee has got through exactly three lines and a: half of the measure, and I would ask him to accept as reasonable that under these circumstances the Government think it too much to ask, and quite un-

  675
  necessary, that this Bill should be reprinted at present.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

COLONIAL SERVICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
(Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Henry Holland, Mr. Jackson.)
[BILL 158.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
DR. TANNER: I want to say, Sir, that it appears to me that, at this early hour of the morning, the Committee should not proceed with this measure. Certainly, there are a great number of Amendments down for consideration; but, really, I think that the Movers are not prepared at such an hour to go into them. I trust that the Government will believe that I am only right in asking that they should be considered some other day—that, in fact, the whole discussion on this Bill should be postponed until some more fitting occasion and opportunity. I hope that Ministers in charge of the measure will see their way to accede to my request, and allow it to be taken at some future period at a more convenient hour than half-past 1 in the morning, after the stress of a severe and straining debate. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are unable to fall in with my views on the matter, I must tell them that it will be my very painful duty to move to report Progress.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY): I hope that the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner) will allow this Bill to be proceeded with, for I think that the Amendment standing in his name is hardly very serious—in fact, the measure might well be advanced until some serious Amendment is reached. So far as I am able to understand, there are none of the Amendments marked on the Paper which are amendments of vital importance. It seems to me that all the Amendments are merely suggestions of improvements on the phraseology of the Bill; and I would put it to the hon. Member that, in these circumstances, we might very well go on with the measure.
DR. TANNER: I am afraid I am unable to agree with the hon. Gentle-
676
man's (Sir Herbert Maxwell's) view of the matter; but I will meet him thus far—that is, if the hon. Gentleman is willing to come to a compromise—that if he so desires, I will be content to go, on as far as the end of Clause 2 of the measure. However, I want him clearly to understand that I certainly cannot proceed any further than that.
Clauses 1 and 2 severally agreed to.
Clause 3 (Provision as to pensions under 28 & 29 Viet. c. 113, and 35 & 36 Viet. c. 29).
MR. T. M. HEALY: As to this measure, Sir, I want to say that I think the Government have no right—not a bit—to make the entire of these pensions a charge on the Consolidated Fund, if that, as I understand it, is what they propose to do.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) does not quite understand what is proposed to be done. The whole charge will not be laid on the Consolidated Fund. It is provided in the clause that the pensions for Colonial service shall be paid out of Colonial funds, and the Imperial out of Imperial funds.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.— [BILL 31.]
(Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Haldane.)

COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not know whether this measure applies to Ireland; but my impression is that it does not, and I should like to ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) which is the case? In the event of it being limited to this country, I would suggest to him that it would be very advisable if he could see his way to extend the measure, so that Ireland might have the benefit of it.
MR. COZENS-HARDY: As a matter of fact, this Act will apply to Ireland, limiting accumulations, exactly as in England.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

POLICE FORCE ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.— [BILL 240.]
(Mr. Burdett-Coutts, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Howard Vincent, Lord Claud Hamilton, Colonel Laurie.)

CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: I object, Sir, to the 6th clause of this Bill in point of form.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I presume, since the Government has given us their pledge in this House not to extend this Bill to Ireland, we may rely that they will not violate the promise.

TRUCK BILL.— [BILL 109.]
(Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Warmington, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Arthur Williams, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Esslemont.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th April.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 3 (Workmen to be entitled to advance of portion of wages).
MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the Committee may be able to postpone the clause, and to go on with the undisputed clause.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): If the Committee will allow me, I desire to withdraw the Amendment which I have moved on the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 omitted.
Clause 5 (Order for goods as a deduction from wages illegal).
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 1, leave out to "in any," in line 8; in line 9, leave out from "workman" to last "the," and insert "for the recovery of his wages;" in line 10, leave out from "entitled to any goods," in line 11, and insert "any set-off or counter claim in respect
678
of;" in line 12, leave out "such," and after "direction," insert "of the employer or any agent of the employer; "in line 13, leave out from "otherwise" to end of Clause, and insert—
"And the employer of a workman, or any agent of the employer, or any person supplying goods to the workman under any order or direction of such employer or agent, shall not be entitled to sue the workman for or in respect of any goods supplied under such order or direction.
"Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to anything excepted by section twenty-three of the principal Act."
MR. CONYBEARE: I do not know if we are to have a reprint of the Bill; in its amended form it is quite impossible to follow these alterations.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I can supply the hon. Member with a reprint to-morrow.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I have considerd the wording very carefully.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The Amendments are to avoid the necessity of striking out the clause altogether. Perhaps the hon. Member will follow my reading of the clause as it will stand in its amended form.
[Clause read.]
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Wages to be paid in pay office).
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Clause struck out of the Bill.
Clause 7 (No contracts with workmen as to spending wages at any particular shop, &c.)
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 20, leave out from "shall" to "a condition," in line 24, and insert ''directly or indirectly, by himself or his agent, impose as;" line 25, leave out "such artificer or;" line 25, leave out "or shall," and insert—
"Any terms as to the place at which, or the manner in which, or the person with whom, any wages or portion of wages paid to the workman are or is to be expended, and no employer shall by himself or his agent;"
line 26, leave out "artificer or;" line 27, leave out from "of" to end of line, and add—

679
"The place at which, or the manner in which, or the person with whom, any wages or portion of wages paid by the employer to such workman, are or is expended, or fail to be expended, and in any action by a workman for wrongful dismissal, the violation of any terms prohibited by this section, or the failure of a workman to spend his wages, or any portion thereof, at any place or in any manner or with any person shall not be a justification for his dismissal."
MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish to oppose the clause, or impose any obstacle to the passage of the measure generally; but there is a question I should like to bring before the notice of the Committee, though, perhaps, it will be considered at a later stage of the Bill, for I understand the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) has to-night placed an Amendment on the Paper. It is a point that seems to be cognate to matters in this clause, and that is the action of employers who have been known to make deductions from workmen's wages to pay the entrance fee and subscriptions to political clubs.
MR. BRADLAUGH: My hon. Friend will allow mo to explain; that point will be raised by a new clause later. Notice of the clause has been given by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. We are purposely avoiding all contentious clauses to-night.
MR. CONYBEARE: I am entirely satisfied.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Jurisdiction and recovery of penalties).
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Clause struck out of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Penalties and expenses in Scotland).
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Clause struck out of the Bill.
Clause 10 (Artificer to be paid in cash, and not by way of barter, for articles made by him).
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 7, leave out to "under," and insert—
"Where articles are made by a person at his own homo, or otherwise, without the employment of any person under him except a member of his own family, the principal Act and this Act shall apply as if he were a workman, and the shopkeeper, dealer, trader, or other person buying the articles in the way of trade were his employer, and the provisions of this Act, with re-
680
spect to the payment of wages, shall apply as if the price of an article were wages earned during the seven days next preceding the date at which any article is received from the workman by the employer.
"This section shall apply only to articles."
In page 3, line 12, leave out from "materials" to end of Clause, and insert—
"Where it is made to appear to Her Majesty the Queen in Council that, in the interests of persons making articles to which this section applies in any county or place in the United Kingdom, it is expedient so to do, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to suspend the operation of this section in such county or place, and the same shall accordingly be suspended, either wholly or in part, and either with or without any limitations or exceptions, according as is provided by the Order."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Clauses 11, 12. and 13 severally struck out of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sitagain."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
SIR RICHARD PAGET: I should like to have an assurance that the Bill will be reprinted. Is it proposed to re-commit the Bill?
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: This Committee stage is not yet finished. There are several new clauses to move, and it is, I think, unusual to reprint a Bill until Committee is finished.
MR. BRADLAUGH: There will be nothing gained by reprinting the Bill now; these clauses do not contain contested matter.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I think it will be convenient for the Committee to have it reprinted before proceeding further. I say this with no hostility to the Bill whatever.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): We have had a few copies reprinted, and I dare say there will be copies to spare for those hon. Members who desire to have them.
MR. TOMLINSON: The Committee, of course, understand that Clause 3 stands over: it is postponed simply.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TRUCK [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses that may be incurred by the Inspectors of Factories and Mines, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the Law relating to Truck.
Resolution to he reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  BUTTER SUBSTITUTES BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Butter Substitutes Bill do consist of Eighteen Members:—Mr. Sclater-Booth, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Maclure, Mr. Charles Gray, Mr. James William Lowther, Lord Elcho, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Egerton Hubbard, Mr. Jacob Bright, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Edward Russell, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. Colman, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Gurdon, Mr. Matthew Kenny, Mr. Conway, and Mr. Hooper nominated Members of the Committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

SAVING LIFE AT SEA.
Committee appointed, "to inquire into the existing Laws and Regulations regarding Boats, Life Buoys, and other Life Saving Gear required to be carried by British Merchant Ships, and to report what, if any, amendments are required therein."
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members:—Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. Macdonald, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Donkin, Captain Price, Sir James Corry, Sir Charles Palmer, Viscount Kilcoursie, Mr. Bruce, Sir William Plowden, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Thomas Sutherland, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Thomas Gill nominated Members of the Committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Baron Henry De Worms.)
House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites) * (76).
INDIA (THE NORTH-WESTERN FRONTIER)—THE QUETTA RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Pishin Valley Railway was yet open for public traffic; and, if not, when it would be?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, there are two railways to Quetta, both starting from Sibi, on the North-Western Frontier system. The Bolan route is now quite completed, and traffic is working on it throughout. On the Sind-Pishin route the rails have already been linked through; but the line is not yet opened for traffic. I hope that the railway will be opened shortly.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in rising to call attention to the condition of affairs in the New Hebrides, and to ask, What course is proposed to be taken with reference to this important subject by Her Majesty's Government? said, he desired to draw the attention of the House to the continued presence of French soldiers in the Islands of the New Hebrides, although there stands on record a diplomatic understanding between France and England that neither Power should do anything in contravention of the independence of the Islands. He submitted that the subject was an important one from three points of view. In the first place, it was important from the Native point of view; secondly, from the Imperial and Australian point of view; and thirdly, and still more important, because if it was the fact that French troops were still in occupation of these Islands, the sanctity of all International engagements was called in question, or, rather, would be called in question, if such an occupation was sanctioned by the Go-

  497
  vernment of France. He could not but believe that it was the rashness or over-zeal of Local Authorities which had kept French troops in the Islands, for unless he had strong evidence to the contrary, he should be very unwilling to suppose that the French Government would, for one moment, take the line of showing such complete disregard of International undertakings. The presence of the French troops was a clear breach of the International engagement, and if it were likely to be sanctioned by the Government of France a serious breach would occur. The Islands, he might remind their Lordships, were discovered in the first instance by Captain Cook, and under the Charter of 1840 they were included in the Colony of New Zealand. They consisted of about 30 Islands, extending over a length of ocean of about 400 miles North and South. They were extremely rich, were more healthy than the rest of the Pacific Islands, and contained several valuable harbours. The population, numbering from 100,000 to 150,000, were rapidly becoming civilized, and the story of their civilization and Christianization by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland was one of the most creditable in our history. So far as any European language went English was the only tongue known in the Islands, and the feeling of the Natives towards English people was exceedingly friendly. In every Island an Englishman might go about unarmed, though he did not know that quite the same could be said with regard to other nationalities. Australia was especially interested in these Islands from their proximity to her shores, and she was in a panic lest they should become the home of the relapsed criminals from France. In quite recent times both France and Germany had shown their appreciation of the strategic and commercial importance of the group. He thought we had a right, when we found those Islands civilized entirely by British enterprize, Christianized by Scotch enterprize, and wholly British in feeling, to protest against their being handed over to any other country. France, of course, would like to have the Islands for a labour supply to her Colony of New Caledonia. That labour question in the Pacific was one of the most terrible blots in our modern civilization. A French Admiral who had held a high position in the
  498
  Government recently stated in the Senate that the labour that France got from the New Hebrides was simply another form of downright slavery, and that might be accepted as undoubtedly true. In the French Chamber it had been announced that New Caledonia could not take more convicts, and that it would be well if she could get them over to the New Hebrides. Anything more pitiable than such a result he could not imagine. What was the legal position now between France and England as to the New Hebrides? Lord Derby wrote to the Colonial Office in February, 1878, inclosing a letter from the French Ambassador, calling attention to articles in Australian newspapers advocating the annexation of the New Hebrides to the British Crown, and stating that though the French Government did not attach great importance to this annexation movement, still, as they themselves had no intentions with regard to that group, they would be glad to have an assurance to that effect from Her Majesty's Government. Lord Derby informed the Colonial Office that he proposed, if they concurred, to inform the French Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of proposing any measures to Parliament with a view of changing the condition of independence which the New Hebrides then enjoyed. The Secretary for the Colonies concurred in this answer. As time went on the feeling in favour of annexation became stronger and stronger in Australia, and alarmed the French Government. A communication was made to Her Majesty's Government that the Government of the Republic felt it their duty to ascertain whether the Declarations of 1878 still remained as valid in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government as in that of France, as otherwise they would feel it their duty to insist on the maintenance of the existing state of things. In a despatch to Lord Lyons, the noble Earl who was then at the head of Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) had said that the Agreement of 1878 was considered by Her Majesty's Government to be perfectly valid. On the 31st of August, 1883, the English Chargé d'Affaires informed Lord Granville that he had left at the French Foreign Office a note verbale to this effect. Lord Derby, when at the Foreign Office, had assured the Australian

  499
  Colonies that no proposal for the annexation of the New Hebrides would be entertained without consulting the Australian Colonies, and also without securing conditions satisfactory to those Colonies. When the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had been Foreign Secretary an offer had been made by France to give up the transportation of relapsed criminals if she might take the New Hebrides. That was refused by the Australian Colonies on being consulted, and the noble Earl had then informed the French Government of that refusal. There the matter rested; but in June, 18S6, without any formal annexation on the part of France, or without the Central Government at Paris being in any way connected with the matter, French troops were placed on the Island. From a letter which he had received from a well-known Scotch gentleman at Melbourne, he understood that the French still occupied a military station and were erecting what appeared to be permanent buildings, and putting up wooden sheds either for convicts or for additional troops. He had had another letter, dated December 6, 1886, from another Scotch gentleman at Havannah Harbour, Exatè, stating that on June 1 a military post had been established in that harbour with over 100 French Marines, and immediately afterwards a similar post had been established at Port Sandwich. He thought that these letters would justify him in bringing this matter before their Lordships' House, as it was a matter which ought to be decided quickly one way or another. The Government had shown no undue pressure in the matter, and, on the other hand, he believed that the Central Government in Franco had in no way been committed to this infraction of the Treaty. It might be said that this occupation had been rendered necessary on account of outrages; but he had made inquiries, and had found that no serious cases of outrage had been brought home to the inhabitants of the New Hebrides. As often as not what were called outrages were the result of the abominable system of labour trade which prevailed in those parts, and which had done more to set the Natives of the Islands against the Whites than anything which could be done. He would, therefore, implore Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of the Natives, in
  500
  the interests of our Australian Colonies, in the interests of our Imperial and commercial obligations, but, above all, in the interest of the sacredness of good faith in public International Agreements, to take up this matter and bring to a termination the French occupation. As Germany had recently shown, there was no need for any sense of wounded pride, and no humiliation, in an admission on the part of a great nation that it had done a wrong act.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) has made a very interesting speech, and I only feel very great regret that it is not in my power to give him in return anything nearly so valuable or so interesting. The truth is, I heard with some dismay my noble Friend go from point to point on matters which have been laid before the House, and I have very little indeed to add to what he has said. My noble Friend will understand that there are matters which he has discussed, and which he has a perfect right to discuss, but into which it would not be right for me to follow him. For example, I could not examine the motives which induced the French Government to attach value to the New Hebrides, and the same reason likewise precludes me from examining into motives which have induced the Australian Colonies to look upon these Islands with exceptional interest. There is no doubt of the International state of the case—that France and England have engaged to each other not to annex the New Hebrides, and there is no doubt that at this moment the French Government is in occupation of these Islands; but that they have assured us, in tones whose earnestness and sincerity we have no right to doubt, that they have no intention of permanently occupying those Islands; and, therefore, no definite character ought to be attached to their proceedings. They have informed Her Majesty's Government that they have been obliged to take the step they have taken, solely in consequence of the outrages which have occurred. There have been outrages—we do not quite know how many; but, undoubtedly, certain persons in 1885 were killed, and several others wounded and attacked. The position of the French Government is that

  501
  as soon as satisfactory arrangements can be made by which the peace of the Islands can be maintained, and Europeans can be preserved from danger of outbreak, they would be glad to withdraw their troops. Her Majesty's Government have made proposals for the purpose of carrying this object into effect. These proposals have not been rejected, neither have they been absolutely accepted. Under the pressure of political events which have happened internally and externally upon France during the last six months, the negotiations have not gone on with that rapidity which we should like to see. We have, upon more than one occasion, called attention to the delay, and the French Government have always assured us that they were prepared to make proposals, and I believe that the French Ambassador is likely to make a communication of some importance in the course of the present week. I can make no further answer, except to assure my noble Friend that I am as fully sensible as he is of the sacredness of the International engagement which prevents both France and England from occupying these Islands of the New Hebrides, and Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing on their side from the engagement.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was far from urging on the Government to take any other course than they had taken, and he did not doubt that the noble Marquess the Prime Minister had kept that course adequately in view and had expressed his opinion to the French Government; but he was sure the answer would cause great disappointment in the Australian Colonies and among those in this country who were interested in the question. Could the noble Marquess state whether there were any ships of war in the vicinity of the New Hebrides? He should be glad to learn that the British ships of war which were at the New Hebrides last May were still there, and whether there was any force representing our interests in the Islands. That was a matter of some importance, as showing that we attached weight to the question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not answer the Question without Notice. It was his impression that some of Her Majesty's ships had been there from time to time. There was, however, no permanent station there, and whether
  502
  there were any ships there at this present moment he could not say.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, no one in England who had followed these matters closely, and no one in Australasia, could avoid regretting its present position, or could regard the present state of things as satisfactory. With regard to these Islands an understanding had, so far back as 1840, been come to between this country and the French Government that their independence should be respected. In 1858 a definite agreement to this effect was entered into, and that agreement had for years been recognized by successive English Governments and by the French Government. Now, however, after several years of pour parlers on the subject the French flag was to be found flying there. It was difficult to reconcile this with the amiable theory set up by his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) who introduced the subject that it might be the indiscreet act of some agent or imprudent officer on a foreign station. He was sorry that this was not the only case of this nature which had arisen. There was another group of Islands, well known to Colonists and mariners—the Society group—one of which formed the subject in 1847 of a distinct reciprocal agreement between this country and France that its independence should be respected. Yet for at least five or six years the French flag had been flying upon it, notwithstanding all protests and complaints that had been received on the subject. At the great distance England was from these Islands and the scene of these transactions, and owing to attention being diverted at home by the multiplicity of political questions, matters had been occurring in the South Pacific which often escaped our attention, but which to the great Colonies were questions of life and death. He did not make any charge against the French Government—or oven a complaint—it was, perhaps, very creditable to French policy and foresight; but if their Lordships took a map and referred to the present state of things in the Eastern part of the South Pacific, they could not fail to be struck with the enormous amount of the recent French annexations. Tahiti, for instance, which some years ago nearly led to a collision between the two countries, was till lately under French protection. Recently the

  503
  protectorate had been converted into sovereignty. Similarly the Society Islands, Rapa, the Austral group, and the mass of the Islands that went by the name of the Lower Archipelago had, in recent years, been annexed. The desire for territory, and the wise foresight which looked to the opening of the Panama Canal, accounted partly for what had taken place. Turning from the East to the West Pacific, where Australian interests mainly lay, a similar state of things existed. In the West Pacific there was the great French Colony of New Caledonia, peopled by convicts; there were the Loyalty Islands, and, if the New Hebrides were by any accident transferred to the jurisdiction of France, there would stretch a great block of intervening Islands between Australia and Fiji—all under the French flag—and which might be described as our outpost on the other side. Whatever might be thought of these things in this country, no Australian would, or could, or ought to regard the prospect without a feeling of considerable anxiety. He could not say what were our precise relations with other countries with which we came into contact in the Pacific. No one who was not in Office could exactly tell. But he had no reason to believe these relations were otherwise than satisfactory. About three years ago their Lordships might remember that an important agreement was come to between this country and Germany by which the two Governments agreed to delimit their jurisdiction—their spheres of influence it would be more correct to say—in the South Pacific. The result of this had been that, so far as Germany was concerned, the chances of friction had been very much lessened. He would throw out for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government the suggestion whether some such understanding might not be arrived at with France as regarded the same seas. The noble Earl pointed out strong reasons why this matter should be satisfactorily settled without delay. There were two special reasons for this. It was a question that closely affected the natives of the South Pacific. He (the Earl of Carnarvon), about 1876 and 1877, was the author of two Acts which created the Office of High Commissioner with jurisdiction to deal with all cases of outrage on natives, especially such as arose out of the labour
  504
  traffic. Those Acts had done great good, but they had not altogether attained their object. It was not possible for the British Government to give the High Commissioner jurisdiction over foreigners, or natives, in any but British Islands. He earnestly recommended the Prime Minister to consider whether some amendment of the existing state of things, which allowed a large part of the criminal and uncivilized community in those quarters to escape jurisdiction, could not be come to by the consent and co-operation of foreign Powers. There used to be a mixed Slave Trade Court which worked very well in the Slave Trade days; and he believed this Slave Trade Commission—which, as he said, formerly existed—might contain a suggestion for a precedent. There was another reason which rendered the settlement of the matter urgent—namely, the Recidivist question in New Caledonia. That was a very large and important question, and one that had moved the Australian public mind to its lowest depths. Until this question of the New Hebrides—with which it was connected—should have been settled it would remain, he feared, a burning question, containing in itself the germs of future anxiety, trouble, and possible danger.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to express my gratification that, being in Office, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) seems to think that there is some weight in the principle which I was in the habit of asserting, that an answer should not be hastily given without Notice to Questions relating to important foreign affairs. There is still this difference between us, however. When I laid down that principle I adhered to it, and did not answer Questions until after Notice; whereas the noble Marquess, after enunciating the principle, has really told us how the matter stands to which the Question put to him refers. There is certainly no one more anxious than I am to avoid causing any feelings of unnecessary excitement between our great neighbours the French and ourselves. The proof of this is, that when we first received the news of the landing of French troops in the New Hebrides, and considered the advisability of sending immediately ships of war to the scene, we hesitated to do so, lest it should cause unnecessary

  505
  irritation. A short time afterwards, however, on getting further information, we agreed that it was desirable to send British ships, not as a menace or in any spirit of hostility, but in order to put the two countries on the same footing. Since then, as far as I know, the occupation has been consistently disowned by the French Government, who have always given us assurances that they do not desire the occupation of the New Hebrides, and that they intend to adhere to the International agreement. Last year the noble Earl near me repeated that assurance, which he had recently received from the French Government. But now that this French occupation of the shore had gone on, not only for weeks and months, but for more than a year, a change in our policy, and a reversal of the order that ships shall be on the spot, may exercise an unfavourable impression, especially on the Colonial mind. I am glad, therefore, to hear from the noble Marquess that he is about to receive an important communication from the French Government. In conclusion, let me say that no one can desire more heartily than myself that the communications between the Governments may lead to a really satisfactory result for the French nation, ourselves, and our Colonial fellow subjects.

NAVY—POSITION OF LIEUTENANTS— RETIREMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEY, in rising to call attention to the present system of retirement in the Navy, and to the Hock which at present exists in the Lieutenants' List; and to ask, Whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to improve the position of lieutenants? said, that he did not wish to cast any blame on the retirement scheme of 1870. In fact, he looked upon it as a settled charter which could not be altered, and which had, on the whole, worked very well. Their Lordships, doubtless, remembered the state of the retirement list of all ranks before 1870, the endless confusion that existed, the number of retirement lists with separate letters of the alphabet to each, and the perfect block of promotion. Year by year feeble attempts were made to overcome the difficulties that surrounded the question; but it was not
  506
  until 1870 that any considerable attempt was really made to grapple with them. The general result had been very satisfactory, and he was glad to find that the calculations made by Mr. Childers as to cost had been fully borne out. Mr. Childers said that the cost of the executive officers (including navigating officers) on non-effective pay would rise for a few years and then gradually diminish. This had been the case. In 1870–1 the cost was £387,798; in 1875–6 the cost was £456,185; and in 1887–8 it was to be £341,540. One great principle of the scheme was that there were to be young officers on all the lists, and with that object Mr. Childers gave a high retired pay. Unless that principle was kept up, the greatest advantage of the whole scheme would disappear. He wished to call attention to the state of the lieutenants' list, because he thought the time had arrived when some special help must be given to that list, so that the wheels of the retirement scheme might be made to work smoothly. In the lieutenants' list a block which was not foreseen had arisen, and the average age was getting older year by year. If the Admiralty did not act promptly very great discontent might result, and probably so much pressure would be exercised upon the Naval Authorities that they would find it impossible to resist a large inflation of the upper lists, in order to give what was called a "flow of promotion." That there was grave discontent among the lieutenants, who were the backbone of the Service, no one could deny. The total number of lieutenants and navigating officers now authorized was 1,000. It was thought in 1870 that it would be possible to keep the number down to 600, with 200 for navigating duties, making a total of 800, but in 1879 it was found necessary to raise the number by another 200. It had not yet been found practicable to get the list up to the authorized number. There were still only 873 lieutenants, and he believed that it would be seven or eight years before the entries as naval cadets would make it possible for the full number to be reached. The annual average number of promotions was only about 23, and it was only possible for two lieutenants out of nine ever to be promoted. This constituted the great cause of complaint; because the list was below its authorized numbers it had

  507
  been impossible to allow any special retirements. In 1871 there were 79 lieutenants of over 10 years' seniority; in 1879 there were 150; in 1883 there were 193; and in April, 1887, there were no less than 279, or nearly one-third of the entire list. Now, it was well known that when a lieutenant had over 10 years' seniority he had arrived at an age when—unless he had a prospect of promotion within the next two or three years—he was bound to become more or less discontented and unsettled. What was specially wanted in the Navy was that the lieutenants' list should be kept young and efficient. At present it was perfectly clear that the list during the next few years would get considerably older, with the very greatest disadvantage to the Service in general. When a lieutenant became over 12 years' seniority he knew that he could never reach the higher grades of the Service, but would, even if promoted, have to be retired either as commander or captain. It was absolutely necessary also that young men should be selected for promotion to commanders, as otherwise the age would be raised in every rank, and there would be constant expensive retirement. A pamphlet had lately been published, which he understood had been approved by nearly all the lieutenants on the list, pointing out very fairly their complaints in respect to promotion, position, and pay. He was told that it was contemplated to increase the commanders' list slightly. If that were done because of the requirements of the Service, it would be a wise course; but if it were done merely in order to facilitate promotion, much as he desired to benefit the lieutenants, the result would be most disastrous. The captains' and commanders' lists must be small, and an attempt to increase them, except for the requirements of the Service, would do away with the main features of the retirement scheme of 1870, and there would be no stop to it. In respect to promotion, the lieutenants seemed to desire that certain special regulations should be enacted in their favour, so that every man might have a certainty of promotion to commander. On this point he could not go with them, as they asked what it was impossible to concede. In framing the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers laid this down very clearly. He stated—
  508
  "No lieutenant should be deemed to have a moral right to promotion; but promotion from his rank or that of commander was to be purely by selection on account of efficiency and prospective usefulness. The idea of promotion from that rank merely to enable a good flow to be secured was absolutely rejected."
  So soon as there were a sufficient number on the list, the only way in which the matter could be dealt with was by allowing the optional retirement at an earlier age, of, say, from 32 to 35, to all lieutenants who found that from various causes they were not likely to obtain promotion. At present no man had the right to retire until he was 40 years of age, and although the Admiralty had obtained an Order in Council to enable them to allow officers to retire younger that power was not known in the Service. It would be far better that officers should be allowed to leave at a period when there was some prospect of their being enabled to obtain a livelihood in other professions, and it would be far more economical that you should retire men young than that you should retire men from age when captains and commanders at much higher rates. Some inducement ought to be offered to officers to accept this optional retirement, and if £100 were given in addition to the present retirement it would be found to work. A man of 32 to 35 ought to be able to retire upon about £200 a-year as a minimum. It was supposed under the present scheme that a lieutenant could retire at about £300 a-year. Although this was true under special circumstances if he held on until he was 45, no one had succeeded in obtaining so high an amount; and, as a matter of fact, the average rate of retirement was only about £150. As regarded the question of position, there could be no doubt that during the last few years there had been changes in the relative rank of officers of the civil branches which had placed them higher in many ways than the lieutenants. With respect to pay, a considerable change might be made at a very small expense. In the "Lieutenants' Pamphlet" this matter was stated very clearly. The pay of the ordinary lieutenant was the same now as it was in the year 1841—namely, 10 s. a-day, the only difference being an increase of 2s. per day after ten years' service. This rate was small even in 1841; but it was absurdly small when one considered the

  509
  highly-trained scientific officers of the present day. Forty-seven years ago a lieutenant had to be a thorough seaman, efficient in the command of men, and possessed of a general knowledge of gunnery, but he was not supposed to do much more. Now, he was required to be not only a thorough seaman, but a competent scientific officer, able to manage huge and unwieldy ironclads; well acquainted with engines, hydraulic gunnery, and torpedoes in all their branches; able to command a naval brigade on shore, to navigate and pilot his vessal, and to have a general knowledge of International Law. Some increase, therefore, ought to be made in the pay which was given 4o years ago. No doubt it was urged that extra allowances were given besides this 10 s. a-day for definite qualifications, and this was certainly true for trained officers, principally instructors, at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a-day. This was merely special pay for special work, and the average lieutenant's pay remained the same—namely, 10 s. a-day. He found that there were 58 gunnery officers, 34 torpedo, and 137 senior lieutenants receiving these special allowances for this special work. It was sometimes urged that there was an unlimited supply of naval cadets forthcoming, and therefore there was no necessity to raise the pay of lieutenants. This was a most unfair argument to use, because a boy of 14 did not calculate what he had to look forward to. In 1841 a lieutenant was the be3t paid officer of that rank, and now in 1837 he was the worst paid. In 1841 lieutenants received 10 s. a-day; in 1887, 10 s., rising to 12 s.; in 1841, masters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; in 1841, assistant surgeons received 7s. a-day; in 1887, Us. 6d., rising to 27 s.; in 1841, chaplains received 8s. 9d.; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; in 1811, naval instructors received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s.; and in 1841, paymasters received 7s. a-day; in 1887, 12 s., rising to 22 s. The lieutenants asked that progressive pay should be given, as had been done in every other branch. They proposed that the extra 2s. which was now given when they had 10 years' seniority should be given at eight years instead, and a further 2s. when they had served 11 years. This increase would, he believed, only cost about £ 10,000, and if it brought
  510
  with it moderate contentment it would be cheaply purchased. The lieutenants who were of 10 years' seniority had, with their junior service, actually been. 20 years in the service. Lot their Lordships think what it must be to a man to find himself with no chance of promotion before him after this service, and to have to remain a lieutenant until he was 40 years old on £216 a-year. We had at the Admiralty at the present moment a Board who were eminently fitted to deal with the subject, and Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins, who had special charge of the Department, was one of our most able and distinguished Admirals, and one who had the interests of lieutenants most thoroughly at heart. He had consulted several great authorities on the suggestion he had made, and they all agreed. Perhaps there was no one who had given greater attention to the subject of retirement than Admiral Colomb, and had worked out the most copious statistics on the subject. He most cordially concurred in. the plan of optional retirement at an early age and increased pay. Mr. Childers allowed him to say that he also quite approved an optional retirement at an early age. There was much more that might be said on the subject; but he thought he had said enough to show that the lieutenants' list was in a most unsatisfactory condition. For many years the numbers would be short, and, in consequence, it would be impossible to do much either in retirement or by promotion year by year. In consequence the number of senior men would greatly increase, which would be a serious evil, not only to the lieutenants themselves, but to the Naval Service generally. The only possible alleviation at present that he could see open was a small progressive increase of pay, and a promise of optional retirement in the future. He ventured to say that this was a serious matter. The lieutenants were, as he had already said, the backbone of the Service. It was from this list that all our captains and commanders had to be selected, and whatever was hurtful to and detrimental to this body of officers must work with most disastrous effect on those who would command our ships. An officer in the Navy required special consideration. Life at sea was surrounded with perils and dangers which only those who had gone through them could tho-

  511
  roughly appreciate. When one thought of the years spent in different seas under the strictest discipline, far removed from the joys and happiness of home life, continually undergoing long night watches and monotonous voyages, it was impossible for the severest critic not to have a deep feeling of sympathy for these gallant officers, and to be most anxious that any feeling of discontent as to their pay and position should be speedily removed. Of this he was quite certain—that we had now a picked body of lieutenants, men imbued with the finest sense of honour and with the deepest devotion to their duties; and if the prayer of the petition which the lieutenants had put forward in their pamphlet was not entertained, he thought it would be one of the greatest mistakes that it would be possible to make. He trusted that the noble Lord who represented the Admiralty would be able to give a satisfactory reply.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he wished to say a few words on the case which had been so clearly stated by the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Sudeley). The small increase of pay which was made three years ago was in consequence of his having brought this subject before the notice of their Lordships in 1883. He then asked that 1s. a-day extra pay might be granted to officers of eight years' standing and upwards. The noble Earl who was then First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) was not able to do anything in that year, but in the following year he provided for an increase of 2s. a-day to all lieutenants of 10 years' standing and upwards. That increase gave great satisfaction then, but he thought the time had now arrived when something more ought to be done, and he agreed with his noble Friend that the request of the lieutenants, as far as the increase of pay was concerned, should be acceded to. He did not intend, to offer any observations upon this question of retirement or choice of cabins, as he was not an authority upon those subjects, not having had the advantage of serving in the Navy. But there was no doubt but that the position of the lieutenants was much more unfavourable now than it was, say, 20 years ago. To show this, he would mention two matters within his own observation. When he went to Australia, he found, on his arrival at
  512
  Sydney, six ships on the station. Three were commanded by commanders; the other three were corvettes, commanded by post captains—one of these captains was the Commodore. He was then only about 40, having been appointed when 39.He had been posted at 26. Another, the late Admiral Hope, who had been flag lieutenant to Admiral Corry in the Baltic, had been made a captain at 32. The third, now Admiral Lyons, had become a captain at 27. But it might be said that two of those officers had had war service in the Black Sea during the Crimean War; whilst the third, as he had said, had been a flag lieutenant. He would, therefore, take another case. In 1866 the Duke of Somerset, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, brought out a new Warrant for the promotion of commanders, and 31 were, as it were, by a single stroke of the pen, promoted on June 11, who had been serving, probably, in all parts of the world. As a very near relation of his own was amongst the number, the matter had the more impressed itself on his memory. Of these 31 officers, only four were over 40 years of age; one was 51, three were 40,or between that and 50. The remaining 27 were between 30 and 40. The junior of these—not in age, but in standing—had five and a-half years' standing as a commander. Their average age was between 37 and 38. These men were made post captains. Nowadays, a lieutenant would be rather fortunate to be made a commander at 32 or 33, and 37 would not be a bad average of age for that rank. He thought that the lieutenants had a very strong case; and he felt sure that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would give the matter his careful consideration, and do all he could for them consistently with the requirements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD in WAITING)said, he must, in the first place, take the opportunity of thanking his noble Friend. (Lord Sudeley) for having so fully and so courteously explained the question he intended putting. He was not surprised at his calling attention to the subject, for it was one in which he knew his noble Friend took a deep interest, and he also remembered the very active and prominent part he took in the other House of Parliament when the

  513
  question of naval retirement was under discussion in 1870 and 1873. The Admiralty were keenly alive to the matter. The problem how to insure a steady and an uniform flow of promotion through the various ranks of the Naval Service was one that successive Boards of Admiralty had for many years been endeavouring to solve. And he could assure his noble Friend that the present Board were as anxious to find a solution as he was himself. He would endeavour to show the causes which had led to the present state of the lieutenant's list. It was unnecessary to refer to the earlier schemes of retirement, or to any anterior to that of 1870, when Mr. Childers, then First Lord of the Admiralty, re-organized the list and introduced his retirement scheme, which, with slight modifications, was the present scheme of naval retirement. Mr. Childers's object was to reduce the list, first, by a compulsory age retirement, and, secondly, by giving such an increase to the retiring pension as would not only induce officers to retire but would make them contented to do so. Two hundred and seventy officers accepted that retirement. Three years afterwards, in 1873, Mr. Goschen, who succeeded Mr. Childers as First Lord, still further increased the retiring pension, as it was found that officers were not retiring as quickly as it was hoped and expected that they would do. About 170 officers accepted the new retirement. Under the scheme of 1870, Mr. Childers desired that the numbers should be only sufficient for the actual requirements of the Service with reference to employment and not as outlets for promotion. He therefore fixed the number of admirals at 60, captains at 150, commanders at 200, and lieutenants at 600. But, fully recognizing the difficulty, or rather the absolute impossibility, of passing 600 lieutenants into a list of only 200 commanders, he increased the retiring allowance, and gave what was considered an adequate and a liberal compensation for loss of promotion. He saw, in fact, that it was quite out of the question to hope to pass every young officer who entered the Service through the various grades until he became an admiral. He therefore said, in effect—"If I am unable to promote you, I will at any rate give you a fair money compensation when you retire." He spoke
  514
  in the presence of a noble Earl opposite who was a Lord of the Admiralty at that time. He would correct him if he was wrong, but he said that the very essence of the retirement scheme of 1870 was that, where an officer could not be promoted—and it was perfectly clear that all could not be promoted—they should be liberally compensated on retirement. In 1875 the number of admirals was increased to 68, of captains to 175, of commanders to 225; and in 1879 the lieutenants' list was increased to 800. Now, if a difficulty existed in 1870, when 600 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 200 commanders, that difficulty was the greater when 800 lieutenants had to be squeezed into a list of 225 commanders. In the same year—1879—it was determined that the masters or navigating line should be abolished, and that the duties of navigating should be undertaken by the lieutenants. The navigating line was gradually to die out, and the number of lieutenants was gradually to increase until it reached its maximum of 1,000, which it would do in about six years. Anyone who had followed him through the figures he had given would readily understand the cause of the present state of the lieutenants' lists, and the limited possibilities of those officers rising to the rank of commander. The noble Lord opposite had referred in terms of well-merited praise to lieutenants as a class. He echoed every word. He yielded to no one in his admiration of their zeal and ability, and of the way they had set themselves to keep pace with the altered conditions of the Service and of the requirements of the times; and he sympathized with them in the difficulty they experienced in obtaining that promotion which they naturally looked to as their reward. He said more. He said that the Admiralty sympathized, and sympathized deeply, especially with the senior and deserving officers for whom no promotion was to be found. The commanders' list stood at present at 225. The Admiralty, finding that they could usefully employ a larger number of commanders, proposed to increase that number by the addition of seven yearly, until the maximum of 270 was reached, and they were in communication with the Treasury upon the subject. This addition to the commanders' list would, to a certain extent, benefit the lieutenants.

  515
  At present two out of nine obtained commander's rank. If the proposed change were carried out, two out of seven would obtain their promotion. In former times the number was about one in every 15. The noble Lord opposite proposed that lieutenants should be allowed to claim their retirement after 10 years' service as lieutenants. Under the existing regulations a lieutenant might claim his retirement with the rank of commander at the age of 40; but, were his noble Friend's suggestion carried out, a lieutenant would be entitled to claim his retirement at the age of from 30 to 35, at the very time when his services could be least dispensed with, and his experience was most valuable, and irrespective of the requirements of the Service at the time. At the present moment there were 875 lieutenants on the active list; and if this suggestion were carried out no less than 243, or more than one-fourth, could claim their retirement. Take this case. There were 88 lieutenants serving in the Mediterranean, 19 of whom were over 10 years' seniority; therefore, nearly one-fourth could insist upon retirement. Under the Order in Council of 1870 lieutenants could retire at any time, with the consent of the Admiralty, no matter what their seniority might be. The Admiralty were the best judges as to the present requirements of the Service, and they were and must be the sole judges as to the prospective requirements of the Service. To them, and to them alone, must be left the option of consent or non-consent to the application of an officer wishing to retire at an age under that fixed by the Order in Council of 1870. The Admiralty had no wish to compel any officer to serve against his will, nor was it to the interests of the Service that any reluctant or discontented officer should be retained whose services could properly be dispensed with, but so long as the lieutenants' list was below the proper strength and there were no officers available on half-pay, as was the case as present, they were bound to refuse applications to retire before the age established by the Order in Council of 1870, save in very exceptional cases. With regard to the suggestion that lieutenants should receive an increase of 2s. a-day after eight years' seniority, with a further increase
  516
  of 2s. after 12 years' seniority, instead of as, at present, 2s. after 10 years, he must remind his noble Friend that the actual amount received by a very large proportion of the lieutenants was greater now than at any former time, and that out of 875 lieutenants no less than 337 were in receipt of additional pay, varying from 1s. a-day to a possible 8s. as first lieutenant and gunnery lieutenant of a rated ship. He could only repeat that the Admiralty were fully alive to the matter. They were desirous of taking such steps as were feasible to improve the position of the lieutenants without departure from the principles laid down by the Order in Council of 1870, and they were giving the matter their fullest, their serious, and their most earnest consideration.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was at the Admiralty in 1870 and was familiar with the terms of the Order in Council of that year. This question of promotion and retirement was a question which had always been occupying the attention of the Admiralty, and would continue to occupy their attention so long as the Admiralty existed. When in 1868 Mr. Childers had this question of promotion and retirement brought under his notice the evils of the system had reached a very high pitch. The condition of things then was altogether different from that which now prevailed. The references that evening had been confined to one rank of officers; but with regard to the other ranks there had been an enormous block on the captains' list, and the same remark applied to other classes of officers. The principle which Mr. Childers applied consistently to every rank in the Navy was this. In the first place, he reduced the number; in the next place, he laid down the principle that in future establishments of each rank should be in proportion to the number of officers whom it was found impossible to employ, and not in reference to the number of other lists. He believed that principle to be a most important one, and he trusted that the Admiralty would never give it up. But beyond that Mr. Childers recognized that it would be impossible to promote all the officers of the various ranks, and therefore for the first time he instituted a very large and liberal scale of retirement. He would undertake to say that

  517
  the scale of retirement in the Navy would compare very favourably indeed with that of any other Service either in this country or any other. It was quite true that it was perfectly impossible to promote 1,000 lieutenants with a list of some 250 commanders, and therefore their Lordships must at once recognize the absolutely certain fact that a large number of lieutenants never could be promoted, and by no scheme that ingenuity could devise would it be possible to effect that object. Well, then, what wore the Admiralty to do? It must give them an adequate retiring allowance. That was a matter which rested entirely with the Admiralty, and their Lordships must look to the Admiralty to do that which was right. With regard to the proposed addition to the list of commanders, he did not, of course, profess to be able to judge how much employment there was for the commanders; but he hoped the Admiralty would exercise a very diligent scrutiny in this regard and take care not to create more commanders than they could find employment for, because that could only add eventually to the numbers of the discontented. It would be useless and prejudicial to the Service to make an addition to the commanders' list simply as a sort of sop to the lieutenants in the hope that by promoting a few just now they might allay the discontent owing to the necessary want of employment. His noble Friend had spoken of the inadequate pay of the lieutenants; but he omitted, to notice certain allowances which they received, and it must not be supposed that the pay was on the same footing as in 1841. Again, the proposition that a lieutenant should have an absolute option of retiring at the age of 32, as suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Sudeley)—considering that for five years, from 13 to 18, the country educated naval officers, and that at the latter ago their services really commenced—was surely one that was not advanced in a serious manner; at all events, he did not believe it was one which the country was likely to accept. He thought that there was no Naval Service in the world in which the officers were treated more liberally than the British.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, he could not agree that an adequate scheme of retirement would meet the necessity of
  518
  the case. An officer who was still a lieutenant at the age of 35 was placed in an entirely false position, for he could not find any possible pursuit on shore. In the interests of the Service it was not so much a question of money as of early promotion or of the officer being allowed to retire at an age when he might find some employment on shore. He remembered Lord Palmerston saying that the great object of the Military and Naval Services was promotion and not pay, and he hoped the Admiralty would give their j attention, not so much to the subject of | increased remuneration of officers as to their early promotion when lieutenants. He would now take the opportunity to ask the Question standing in his name with regard to interpreters. The number of officers qualified as interpreters was very much below that which was found in almost any other Navy in the world. There were about 90 officers of various ranks who are qualified so to act. Out of those not above 16 or 18 were qualified in French, only four in German, and about two in Italian. All the rest were officers qualified in Eastern languages which might or might not be extremely useful, but certainly not so much in the Naval Service as a thorough knowledge of the leading European languages. In the German Service there was hardly an officer who was not a thorough English and French scholar, and the same might be said with regard to Russia. Every Russian officer not only spoke excellent English, but was also thoroughly conversant with French, and most with German. He therefore wished to know whether the Admiralty would give further encouragement to the junior classes of Naval officers to qualify themselves to act as interpreters.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the expressions which had been, made use of with regard to the high merits of the large class of lieutenants. There was no branch of the gallant and distinguished service which deserved more encouragement than the lieutenants of the Navy. It had constantly been a subject of great regret to successive First Lords of the Admiralty that they were unable to grant promotion to a great many of this class, whose claims they thoroughly acknowledged. He approved of the policy which the noble Lord opposite had told them the Admi-

  519
  ralty were about to follow. If it could be done with a duo regard to the interests of the public service, he thought it was wise to increase the number of commanders and thereby give additional promotion to lieutenants. It would not be to the advantage of the Service if the commanders' list was to be largely increased without additional employment being found for them; but, owing to the amalgamation of the navigating officers with the lieutenants, and the increase in the number of small vessels, he believed that such employment might be found. He thought that the Admiralty were right in effecting the change gradually. The responsibility must naturally rest upon the Admiralty, and he could entirely confirm what had been said with regard to Sir A. Hoskins, to whose particular branch this question referred, and in whose hands this matter was placed. For this reason he, for his own part, felt great confidence in the view which the Admiralty had taken of this matter, and he trusted that the proposals which the noble Lord had told them were about to be made would receive the assent of all the authorities concerned, because they would give considerable encouragement to the older lieutenants on the list, by holding out a greater prospect of promotion, which they wanted more than increased pay or speedier retirement from the Service.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that he always received his instructions from the Admiralty before he answered Questions which were placed on the Paper, and his answer to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Sidmouth) was that the Admiralty fully appreciated the desirability of the junior officers acquiring a knowledge of foreign languages, and their attention had been called to the matter in connection with the Britannia course of instruction, but the Admiralty did not propose to hold out any hope of further pecuniary inducement.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he rose to call attention to the question of improvements made on their estates by owners of land in Ireland; and to move for a Return in tabular form of—I.
  520
  Totals of Loans by the Board of Public Works in Ireland for land improvement made between 1847 and 1881 inclusive to owners of land for (a) Erection of farmhouses and offices; (b) Labourers' cottages; (c) Drainage, reclamation, and improvement of lands; II. Totals of Loans between the same years to Drainage Boards; III. and IV. Similar Re-turns since 1881. He was impelled to move for this Return in consequence of the statements made in the debate on the second reading of the Irish land Bill by his noble Friend Earl Cowper, who had been both Lord Lieutenant and also President of the late Royal Commission, and whose utterances therefore commanded such attention, and had been, indeed, since quoted in another place against the landlords by a late Minister. His noble Friend had then rather astonished him by saying that the impression left upon his mind by the inquiries he had made—whilst presiding over the Royal Commission—was that except upon as many estates as one could count upon one's fingers, the landlords had not been in the habit of making in any expenditure upon their estates, and that in cases where the tenants had effected improvements it had been a general custom with the landlords to raise the rents. He had only one word to say with regard to the latter point, and he would say that first of all. He had no doubt read of such cases in the Press, and he had heard of one single case of late years on the part of a gentleman who was now dead, but he denied that the practice was a general one. With regard to the question of expenditure, he entirely dissented from the statement of the noble Earl. He was prepared to admit that in former days it was not the custom for landowners to spend money upon their estates. But to take the case of the North of Ireland, which had been settled by the plantation of Ulster in the reign of James I.—which was a colonizing scheme—it was governed by the rules of the Plantation, and one of the most important provisions of that system was the giving very long leases for lives or for other long terms, which grew into a custom. Upon that he did not believe much improvement was made until the middle or end of the last century. They gathered from the

  521
  very interesting account given of a tour by Mr. Arthur Young in Ireland in 1776, that an extensive system of overcropping then prevailed among the tenants. That clearly showed that no agricultural value could have been added to the land at that time or, indeed, for a very long time afterwards. He believed that in the latter part of the last century landlords were alive to the desirability of the maintenance of their estates, and by way of illustration he might say that he had in his possession the counterpart of a lease granted by the first Earl of Belmore in 1795, in which, in addition to rent, the tenant was bound to make some 50 yards of fences every year, and plant trees along them, during the term of a lease for three lives, or else pay 8s. extra a year. Further, he had to build two farmhouses or cottages or pay a small penalty. When the lease fell in all these improvements were to belong to the landlord, and all this was fully understood by the tenant. He always maintained that the landlord paid for the improvement by taking a smaller rent for the farm than he otherwise would have taken if he had to pay separately for the improvements made. The tenant was thus paid for his improvement by the long lease of his farm at a low rent. In modern times the landlords had spent large sums of money in improving their estates. There were some estates which, no doubt, his noble Friend had in his mind's eye when he spoke of landlords who did not make all the improvements themselves. But these, which were generally known as the English managed estates, were very exceptional, probably not more than five. There were landlords who had spent in improvements large sums obtained from the Board of Works, which sums could be shown in a Return made to Parliament. It was impossible on some estates to show how much had been spent on home farming, or how much upon improving the estate, but there was no doubt that in the aggregate it amounted to a very large sum of money. But besides that, there was another very large source of expenditure which it was impossible almost to get at—namely, the money paid for timber and slates allowed to-tenants by landlords in many parts of the country. He understood that there had been a very large expenditure in that direction
  522
  by the late Duke of Abercorn, in addition to a large amount of loans borrowed from the Board of Works. The late Earl of Caledon also had, he had heard, made a largo outlay in improvements on his estates after the famine time. He therefore felt that it was extremely unfair that landlords who had made sacrifices in this way should be condemned, as they had been condemned by implication in the statement of his noble Friend (Earl Cowper). He quite admitted that his noble Friend had a perfect right to form his own opinion. But in moving for this Return of money spent on their estates by improving landlords between the years 1848 and 1881, he wished to show their Lordships that the great bulk of the landlords in Ireland did not neglect the duties of their position, and spent large sums in providing for the welfare of their tenantry. He believed that some expenditure had been made since 1881, and he, therefore, included a head for such, in his Motion, and also for loans made to Drainage Boards, the interest of which would be paid partly by tenants and partly by landlords.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House Return, in tabular form, of—
  "I. Totals of Loans by the Board of Public Works in Ireland for land improvement made between 1847 and 1881, inclusive, to owners of land for

  (a) Erection of farm houses and offices;

  (b) Labourers' cottages;

  (c) Drainage, reclamation, and improvement of lands:

  II. Totals of Loans between the same years to Drainage Boards:
  III. and IV. Similar Returns, since 1881."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)said, there was no objection on the part of the Government to the Return being given for which the noble Earl moved. It should be laid on the Table as soon as possible.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that as reference had been made to some observations of his he desired to say a few words. He was exceedingly sorry if he gave any cause for annoyance or dissatisfaction to any noble Lords in that House. His remarks on the point referred to were quite unpremeditated, and were called forth by the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who, speaking the same night earlier in the debate, had found fault with the

  523
  Land Act of 1881 on the ground that it stopped all improvements on the part of landlords. In answering that argument of the noble Duke, he pointed out that he did not believe that improvements as a rule were made by the landlords—that they were, in fact, usually made by the tenants, and that the only plan was to encourage tenants to make improvements, and to protect such improvements when made. He qualified his remarks by saying that "until recently" one could count on one's fingers the Irish estates on which improvements were made by the landlords. He was very glad that the Government had granted the Return, as he felt sure that the improvements which had been made by the landlords ought to be known to the public generally. In the course of the inquiry, which with the other members of the Commission, he recently made in Ireland, the question was often put as to the difference between the net and the gross income of an estate, and the difference was usually represented at 15 per cent. In some cases it was put at 20 per cent. This included agency and rates, and was very much less than was the case upon English estates. He would appeal to any noble Lord present to state whether he was not under the mark in saying that in one form or another fully one-half of the nominal income went back upon the land. In the case of a friend of his own, the owner of 70,000 acres, the carefully-kept accounts of the estate showed that in 22 years no less than £930,390 had been expended on the land and in improvements. In the face of those figures he thought he was justified in saying that as a rule improvements had been made in Ireland by the tenant, and in many cases the rent had been raised upon such improvements. Members of that House who were Irish landlords could not be taken as typical of the class of Irish landlords. Many landlords in Ireland had, owing to the improvidence of their ancestors, been placed in very straitened circumstances, and cases of rents being raised on improvements made by the tenant certainly had frequently occurred. As he had said, he should be glad to see this Return furnished, so that it might be shown what landlords had done in this matter. He fully realized that Irish landlords were at the present time,
  524
  owing to no fault of their own, in a very difficult position. Many of them were trying to do their duty under very adverse circumstances, and he was sorry if he said anything that caused offence to them.
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, he was sorry that the noble Lord had not withdrawn the statements more fully than he had done. Such statements, coming from one who had filled the high position of Viceroy, and who lately presided over an important Royal Commission in Ireland, could not fail to unduly prejudice public opinion against the Irish landlords in the settlement of the Irish Land Question, which now could not be very far distant. He merely rose to express his regret that this was not done, and to give one reason why Irish landlords could not improve their estates in the way that English landlords did, and that was the immense number of small holdings that existed on most of them. He had taken some figures on the subject from a Return which had been made to their Lordships' House. Prom this Return it appeared that there were 660,000 agricultural holdings in Ireland. Of these 415,000, or nearly two-thirds, were under £10 rental, and of these 215,000 were under £5 rental, while the average value of the holdings in that country was only £13 and a fraction each. Now, under these circumstances, was it possible for Irish landlords to improve their estates in the same way as English landlords? Nevertheless, the Irish landlords had spent large sums of money on improvements, as can be shown by the statistics asked for; and, in addition, had given very large remissions of rent to their tenants to aid them in making them. He believed that in many cases these improvements, which had been made with money given by the landlord, had been confiscated by the Sub-commissioners when fixing the judicial rents.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the speech of his noble Friend (Earl Cowper) failed to show that the criticisms which he had recently passed on the Act of 1881 were ill founded. His noble Friend said that it was the object of that Act to secure to the tenant the benefit of his improvements. Of that object of the measure he entirely approved. But he must point out that the promoters of the measure also intended

  525
  to secure to the landlords a fair share of the benefits of the improvements made by them. By the proviso at the end of Section 5 permission was given to increase the rent of a holding, subject to a statutory term in respect of capital laid out by the landlord on improvements. This proviso, in fact, allowed free contract between landlord and tenant in a material particular. Unfortunately, the provision was rendered worthless by the rule that at the expiration of every 15 years a tenant might ask for a revision of his rent. Fifteen years was not in itself a sufficiently long term to secure the repayment of capital spent on improvements and interest thereon, and as the rent might be revised at the end of that term, the landlord could not be certain that his improvements would be paid for. There was no probability whatever, under the Act of 1881, that a landlord would effect any improvements on the land held by his tenants, for he could not be sure that he would ever recover the capital spent upon them. That was the great defect of the Act. With reference to the question of raising rent on a tenant's improvements, he would like to know whether those who condemned the practice so vehemently disapproved what were called "improvement leases." In England leases of that kind were common. A tenant was granted a lease at a low rent in consideration of the improvements which he might affect, and at the end of a given period the rent could be raised. Surely there could be no objection to a contract of that sort. As to the Return which had been asked for, he feared that it would not cover the whole ground. It would not present any estimate of the amount of assistance given by landlords to the small tenantry in the improvement of their cottages. Landlords often contributed slates, wood, and lime—in other words, all that cost money—towards the improvement of thatched cottages, while the tenants only contributed the labour. If the system of landowning was to continue in Ireland, some means ought to be taken to encourage landlords to lay out capital on the land. Modifications ought to be introduced into the Act of 1881 for the purpose of rendering unassailable bargains made by landlords with their tenants with a view to the improvement of the land. In the absence of such
  526
  modifications landlords would not ex-spend a single farthing. He could conceive no greater calamity than that the whole rental of a country should be withdrawn out of the fund which, in happier circumstances, would be available for agricultural purposes. In Ireland there was still a vast field for the introduction of agricultural improvements, a great portion of the country being absolutely unreclaimed. He trusted that some system would be devised under which landlords would be encouraged to make improvements.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in reply, that the noble Earl (Earl Cowper) had, in making his comparison between what he thought the small expenditure of Irish landlords, with the large amounts spent by English ones, entirely omitted to notice the very valuable tenant-right interest of the Irish farmers in their farms, which, of course, the English ones, who did not make improvements, did not acquire. To make a fair comparison this should be taken into account.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.